Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney today. We’re talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, still waiting for the jury to deliver a verdict for us. We’re on day three of deliberations. And unlike yesterday, not a whole lot of activity inside the courtroom. We do have a little bit of business that we need to get to judge today, booted out MSNBC, because they were allegedly following around the jury bus, which is a big no-no. So we’re going to check in with judge Schrader, see what he has to say about all of that. Then we’re going to check in with some other people, sending him letters, not the nice kind, either some pretty significant, a serious threats and horrendous things being thrown the judges way called a racist and all sorts of other derogatory terms.
And so we’ll take a quick look at what’s happening with some of those letters that he’s receiving. And we’ll also take our attention outside of the courthouse because there are protests that are brewing up all around Kenosha. And we have a lot of reaction from people they’re boots on the ground. We’ve also got to take a look at drew age, remember drew Hernandez. He was actually a witness that testified during the Rittenhouse trial. He spoke out, he’s been sort of doing the circuits, doing the rounds, speaking out on behalf of kind of Kyle Rittenhouse and the whole situation in general. So we have a clip from him. And then at the end of our first segment, we’re going to hear from Joe Rogan, there was a wild stream that happened over. I think it was over earlier this week, Joe Rogan, it was Tim pool.
It was Alex Jones. It was drew Hernandez. And it was a bunch of people who were, you know, sort of big internet people that all got together in Tim pools. I think RV. And they had a conversation and guess what came up? Kyle Rittenhouse is stories everywhere. It’s David versus Goliath. And so Joe Rogan actually weighed in and we’ll talk about what he called anybody who is sort of, I’m calling them innocence, deniers, the Rittenhouse innocence, deniers, anybody who’s in that category. Uh, Joe Rogan has some words for them. So we’ll take a look at that. And then in our second segment, we’ll dive deeper into the jury instructions today. Judge Schrader actually approved and allowed one juror to take home all 36 pages of the jury instructions, which is a little bit unusual. And, uh, this juror now basically has a book of instructions that they’re going to be able to read and go through.
And so we’re going to take a closer look at them. We’re going to go through all 36 pages quickly because we can do that. But I want you to see what the jurors are doing, what they’re looking at. And so they’re going to take this manual home of instructions, and they’re going to read through everything with a fine tooth comb and say, well, Hmm, what does presumption mean? Oh, maybe I should really have a conversation about that. And so might be problematic, but we’re going to take a look at exactly what the jurors are looking at because they had two questions asking for 11 copies of these, which means they’re going to be reading it all. They’re going to be going through it, watching all the videos, everything with a fine tooth comb, going through a D what do you think about this sentence and analyzing it with all of the other sentences.
And so we’re going to break that down. And then in our last segment, we’re going to just revisit this issue with the videos and some of this compression stuff, because I actually went back and I clipped the actual portion from the testimony of Kraus or whoever’s maneuvering his computer, showing them sort of maneuvering the file system, navigating to the desktop. And literally right on the desktop, you have handbrake and format factory right on the desktop, which, which is just insane. So we’re going to go through that. If you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com, which is our home base. We have a form over there that looks like this. We take questions throughout the show. So you can feel free. If you’re a member over there to use that form, the link is in the post there we’re also of course, taking super chats and super chats from our friends over on YouTube.
They look something like this. We had one from sea of sea of love that came in just six minutes ago, says who thinks the judge is waiting for a guilty verdict on any charge before he rules for a mistrial motion? He’s dangled the carrot in front of the defense. But yeah, I think you’re right about that. I think that by and large, yeah, the judge is waiting. He’s keeping that as his back pocket, if it comes back acquittals. Well, good thing. He didn’t need that, but if it comes back guilties, now that guilty verdict might be on the back of a bad piece of evidence that was admitted called this drone footage. So we’re taking super chats like that. Kimberly piece, super chatted, five bucks for that. Thank you. They’re very, very much Kimberly there love the support. Thank you so much, Kimberly. And so we’ll get to the super chats and the questions over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com at the end of the program.
So stick around for that. We also have clips. So as I mentioned, we have three different segments. Those are clipped up. So if you just want to, if you can’t stick around for the whole show, or if you want to just share a segment with a friend or family member, because let’s be real, nobody wants to stick around for two hour show. I mean, I do, but a lot of other people don’t, so sometimes just a 30 minute segment is all they need. And of course you can send those over to them over at our clips channel. We’d appreciate a subscribe over there as well. Okay. And so let’s get into it. As I mentioned, day three of the written house verdict watch, we’re waiting for the jury to come back with a verdict for us, as we’ve been asking, what is taking so long, the longer we wait, the more concerns we have, the more it makes us believe that maybe they’re really thinking about all of those BS arguments that the prosecution proffered forth, expanding the scope of the deliberation to include all the irrelevant little aspects of the prosecutor’s case, rather than the key question, which is whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse was entitled to the privilege of self-defense.
That one issue has been dissected a million different ways by the prosecution. Now the jurors are really thinking about it. And so the jurors of course also have to consider what else is going on outside of the courtroom. Many of them are recognizing people are saying that they can hear some of the protestors from outside the courtroom shouting in saying that the jurors might be dissuaded, or they might be biased by the pressure from the public, which could be a very big problem. We saw how this might have impacted the Shovan trial. And so the judge has to orchestrate this trial, the estimate sure that the jurors feel safe enough so that they can do their deliberation in peace without being molested. And guess who’s doing the molesting these days, MSNBC big surprise. So the judge comes out first thing this morning and he says those molesters over there, they were actually following the jury bus all over the place, probably trying to figure out who they are. Here’s judge Schrader talking about this in court today,
The media I’ve been asking questions, there’s been conversation around this morning. We had invested, we had asked the media coordinator to, uh, determine possible whereabouts of, uh, certainly the persons, uh, because we received a report this morning, uh, from the Kenosha police department that, uh, last evening about, and let me just set this background here. Um, the jury in this case is being transported from a different location in a bus with a windows, uh, uh, covered so that they don’t, they can’t be seen to look at any aren’t exposed to any signs by one side or another or interest, uh, in the case. And, uh, so it’s, uh, I’m going to call it a seal bus and, um, that’s been done every day. And then they’re brought here to this building and, um, last evening, um, a person who identified himself as James Jim Morrison and who claimed that he was a producer with NBC news, uh, uh, for an MSNBC, um, busted and under the supervision of a person what’s going on.
Oh, okay. Uh, under the supervision of someone named Irene buy-on in New York, Boston, uh, for MSNBC, uh, the police when they stopped him, because he was following in a distance of about a block and went through a red light, pulled them over and inquired of him what was going on. And he gave that information and stated that he had been instructed by Ms. Buy-on in New York to follow the jury bus. Uh, the matter is, uh, under further investigation at this point. Um, and the media has asked questions about it. That’s the latest I have. Um,
All right. So a quick recap on that, judge gives us some background on the bus that the jurors are put in, as they’re transported from the pickup to the drop-off over at the court, it is a sealed bus, as he describes it, he says the windows are covered. It’s really because we don’t want the jurors to look out of the windows and see the signs that say Kyle Rittenhouse is a murdering Nazi or whatever they are. It’s also from my perspective on this thing, so that any, nobody can see in the bus so that nobody can sit there, like MSNBC producer, James T. Morrison and miss buy-on to use their telephoto lens, to get in there and see what jurors are, who they are to identify them so that they can do whatever they do with that data judge specifically says, uh, the police kind of caught wind of this, noted this as did the gentlemen.
Uh, sir, what do you think you’re doing? Oh, uh, well, good question. I’m actually, somebody from MSNBC, I’ve been ordered by my boss, Ms. Buy-on to go and sort of stock this bus of jurors everywhere they go. You go, what? Okay. So an actual news organization ordered that to happen. Following the jurors around the judge has been pretty explicit about this, that, you know, all of that type of nonsense is off limits. So they do it anyways. Judge says, yeah, this is under further investigation. And by the way, he also got a ticket for what he was doing. The judge continued on here he is.
And he was ticketed for, uh, violating a traffic control signal. Uh, he’s not here today from what I’m told. And, um, I have instructed that no one from MSNBC news will be permitted in this building for the duration of this trial. Uh, this is a very serious matter, and I don’t know what the ultimate truth of it is, but absolutely it would go without much thinking that someone who is following the jury bias, that is a very IX it’s extremely serious matter, and it will be referred to the proper authorities for further action. Thank you.
Referred to the authorities for further action and MSNBC. You’re banned. Get outta here. Don’t come back. Not allowed to do that. Nonsense. The police department from Kenosha, they posted this on Twitter. They said last night, a person who is alleging to be affiliated with a national media outlet was briefly taken into custody and issued several traffic related citations. So they actually arrested the dude, which is not common for, you know, a regular civil traffic violation. You know, if you’re speeding or running a red light or unsafe lane change, right? They’re typically not arresting you for that. So several traffic related citations, maybe reckless driving or something else, they made up police suspect. This, this person was trying to photograph jurors incident being investigated much, further, much further says Kenosha PD. There was no breach of security. They continue regarding the jury nor were there any photographs obtained in this investigation remains active and open no further information.
So we’ve got that from the judge. We’ve got that from Kenosha PD. And then of course the internet took a deep dive into these individuals who are these people and what are they doing? Hounding jury buses in the case of the innocent young man, Kyle Rittenhouse here is what we saw Jack Sobek said, judge Schrader says the reporter who was taken into custody was James J. Morrison claims that somebody else named Irene by-in of NBC in New York. So he found somebody, somebody over on LinkedIn and the internet also noticed that she just deleted her account like 45 seconds ago on Twitter. So I ran men, Joe buy-on deleted account doesn’t exist anymore. Gut III, viscerally evaporated, right into the thin air, the digital trash bin. We have another one from her. She’s over on, what does this look like? Uh, this was Twitter. This was an archive from previously joined February, 2011.
And so nuke that account. Somebody else over here named crab crawler says more info establishing Irene buy-on as the actual NBC news person. So then, uh, somebody, somebody actually found on that same Twitter account, a prior tweet from her back on August 4th, 2021, where she says, she’s, she’s reaching out to somebody saying, Hey, Hey, Thomas, I’m Irene with NBC news, talking about unbox kids who got COVID, you know, can you DM me if you’re interested? Thanks. So she’s actually using that account saying that she is within MIS and NBC news. This was the LinkedIn account that somebody found. So right there was initial skepticism that this was who, you know, that there was, there was skepticism about the allegation that this was an actual media agency kind of, because it’s such an insane thing. Like an official credentialed media agency, a booking producer from MSNBC. Somebody told you to go stock the jury bus.
What are you? Sure. Nobody really believed it. And nobody confirmed it. So there’s this sort of allegation floating around internet did a deep dive. It’s obviously NBC, because we have this other thing posted from LinkedIn saying that booking producer at NBC and BC news is Irene buy-on two August, 2021 present to four months ago. And that sort of is corroborated by this tweet that she posted on August 4th, 2021. So it certainly, the media just turns out it’s MSNBC. Isn’t that just, just a little sweet little savory nugget there. And then this afternoon, November 18th at 1:06 PM. Brian Stelter, I think who is the official NBC, uh, now, uh, is he young MSM? Is he an NBC? I think he is. Yeah. Right. He says, uh, he posted this. He says the NBC news statement says last night, a freelancer. This is from NBC last night, a freelancer received a traffic citation while the traffic violation took place near the jury van, the freelancer never contacted or intended to contact the jurors during deliberations and never photographed or intended to photograph them a freelancer.
You see how that works out? A little freelancer, the freelancer never, uh, never contacted or intended to contact anybody. So the freelancer, the freelancer was originally James Morrison, who said, oh no, no, my boss, uh, her name is Irene buy-on. She’s the one who did this MSNBC. We don’t even know James who? James Morrison who? Oh, oh, oh, the freelancer. Yeah. Him. Oh yeah. Well, we use a lot of freelancers and we have nothing to do with any of this. So everybody’s just washing their hands, this thing. And somebody corrected me saying Brian Stelter is a CNN. I can’t keep track of all the knuckleheads out there, but we’ve got, uh, we’ve got Brian Stelter who is telling us what Ms. And NBC are. They’re all basically fungible. They’re all the same as far as I can tell. But you know, I know I noticed something interesting about Brian.
Now, a lot of attorneys do this too, and you might even think I’m guilty of this. You look at my headshot profile on my Twitter account or on my Facebook or on, you know, the thumbnails that I use and you go, you know, you look pretty good there, Rob. But when I see you on camera, you look just terrible. It’s like, what are these bags under your eyes? You just look awful. Like, so what do you, you know, quit lying to the people. And I noticed that in Brian Stelter is, uh, image this photograph up here. I was like, who the hell is this guy? It doesn’t look like it does look like Brian Stelter at all. Not the guy that I’m familiar with. I mean, it looks like somebody who’s, I don’t know, 20 years younger and about 30 pounds lighter and that’s not him.
Is it anyway? So I did a quick research and yeah, I mean, it’s, you know, it’s like that data, it’s like a dating profile versus reality. That’s what you, that’s what you put out, you know, in your Bumble account or whatever the kids are using these days. And then when you show up at the restaurant, that’s what you get. So, you know, Brian Stelter a big part of the problem out there. And, uh, thankfully we get a statement from him and him and NBC just amazing. Okay. So we have somebody else AIG plus who’s a blue check mark over on Twitter is giving us some reports about what’s going on in the streets of Kenosha. We’ve got five schools in Kenosha switched to online classes before the Kyle written house verdict, citing safety in an uncertain time. So that’s good. Well, we’ve basically been under COVID restrictions for the last two years anyway.
So what the hell police arrested two people near the courthouse on Wednesday for disorderly conduct, but let a man with a rifle leave after cautioning him for being near a school. And so you can see two situations here. Uh, obviously, uh, in this situation we have a white officer, uh, it looks like arresting a black, I think female. And then over here we have sort of a, you know, two white guys just, uh, uh, palling around with the AR fifteens. Like, like it’s no problem. So I can see how these tweets are just drafted. It’s beautiful, but we’ve got here, right? That’s an image of some of the madness going on. Don’t know what this backpack is. We have, uh, some more protesters who are out there floating around the Kenosha court steps. And again, folks like this, doesn’t look that significant to me. You know, my, my take on a lot of this is that it’s a lot of kind of hyped up nonsense.
Like where are, where are the throngs of people who are so outraged by the prospect of Kyle Rittenhouse being acquitted? Where are they all like? Is this it, this is what we’ve been told. These are all the people that are very upset that Kyle Rittenhouse might walk, frees like 26 of them. You can see, uh, don’t be a fool to America. You know, this is the problem. Something or problem, and all cops are support the police. So this guy sounds like he might be pro Kyle Rittenhouse, as far as I can tell this person over here says, he’s a killer black crime matters. I don’t know what that means. Uh, you know, so there’s like, there’s like, you know, 26 people out there. So they’re all really upset about, about something. And, and I think, I mean, you can kind of get 26 people for anything, right?
You just say, we’re having a protest down at the Capitol. There’s like in any city there there’s like 20 to 30 people that are like, sounds good. I’ll be there. What are we protesting? Uh, I don’t, I don’t know. It doesn’t matter, no shirt. Doesn’t sure as hell doesn’t know it. Doesn’t actually don’t know. I asked you that let’s go. And that’s just kind of what happens, you know, those people, you see them walking around downtown, you have to go downtown to file a certificate of something. And you’re like, oh yeah, yeah. That’s, you know, that’s, that’s what a lot of what you see. And so the same thing’s happening on the streets of Kenosha. It looks like it’s a little bit more full now might be up to like 36 people. And, uh, see some of the signs here, support for the truth, discover the truth.
We’ve got killer. Kyle’s something don’t let him free. We have a, uh, BLM, this guy was here yesterday. He had the Christmas black lives matter, ugly sweater. This person also has another ugly sweater. So those are starting soon. And then we’ve got, uh, the BLM justice fists. This guy’s got his mass down illegal violation there. So, you know, I mean, it, it really isn’t, you know, all that chaotic it’s, it’s mostly people with cameras, you know, taking pictures and having bullhorns. So I don’t, I, I think, I think most of the country is on the side of free Kyle’s as far as I can tell, uh, at least from what we see on the internet and, you know, the rest of, uh, the rest of the actual hyper ventilators out there, the Kyle Rittenhouse innocence deniers, well, they’re just not showing up in force on the courthouse steps.
So we have also Joyce Gar bassiana over from WISN says that outside the Kenosha courthouse, this is the scene. Here it is. And here we get, we saw these people earlier in the week, we saw rainbow push justice for the victims, no mistrial. So you’ll notice that earlier this week, we didn’t have this bottom portion of this sign, which has been, um, conveniently added. It looks like this individual went and got maybe a Sharpie or a piece of dirt, I don’t know, and wrote no mistrial on the bottom of his sign, which is very clever. So the signs are dynamic and they’re being updated to comport with the outcomes of the case. It’s very, very good. So again, not a whole lot of people, but let’s listen in
Okay. So I don’t even know what they’re saying there, something like I’m going to play it again. And if you, if you know what they’re saying in the chat, let me know, but something to the effect of, Hey, Hey, ho ho, this racist, something has got to go, I don’t know what it is. It’s just racist country or this racist Ponte Tate, or this racist something. But just, I mean, look, look at it. You know, all these people are there. It’s basically media, you know, all these people are taking photographs. You know, these are nice cameras with nice lenses. They’re all there, you know, doing their, you know, live, blogging, whatever. Everybody’s just taking photographs. There’s like six people with the rainbow push signs, doing the, you know, doing the dance and chat, whatever that is. And so what are they saying here?
I, is he saying racist Tate? I don’t know what he’s saying. There it’s actually mostly in consequential, but you know, that, that’s what that’s, that’s all the madness that’s going on. So, uh, also we had this guy, of course, a lot of people get really antsy when you are walking around with a, you know, an AR 15 or something that looks like that also looks like he might have some, uh, body armor on and a lot of other stuff around his chest. And so, you know, this makes people a little uneasy that you can even see this officer, if you follow his eye contact, he’s like looking at that thing. He’s like, you know, that’s actually bigger than mine that I have right now. It’s actually way bigger than mine. And I’m feeling a little bit uneasy about it. This guy is looking at this police officer and he’s saying, bro, that guy is really uneasy.
You look at the size of that thing. So, uh, judge, uh, the officers are a little bit, you know, just, you know, eyeball and things around. And it turns out that this guy is actually a former police officer. So he actually identifies himself as Maserati. Mike, according to the Wisconsin state journal says that he’s been among the loudest demonstrators in Kenosha, during Kyle Rittenhouse, his trial, he’s a fired former police officer from Ferguson, Missouri. So, you know, that’s, that’s sort of showing you some of the makeup of some of the people there. And so I, I don’t know if he’s on what side he’s on. I actually didn’t read the article, probably have done that, but you know, that he’s, I would guess probably on the side of not burning Kenosha down to the ground, if I had to guess as a former police officer, but it could be wrong. So we also have some more reporting from Andy know who is here, says an armed person, dressed in black with face covered, was arrested outside the Kenosha courthouse, videographer Ford Fisher says the arrestee had a knife. Here’s the video of that. So things do get a little bit more aggressive right now. We have a significant police presence there, which we didn’t have earlier. So they’re on high alert.
[inaudible] please step back. How many times [inaudible]
It looks like they’re pulling something off of his leg there
All right. So they basically load them up and not much more happens from there, but just the taste of sort of the police presence that’s there. Now I was sort of being, you know, uh, jovial about the scene on the courthouse steps. Doesn’t look like, you know, it’s a pressure cooker about to explode with 36 people there, but it certainly can’t go that direction. And the police are on high alert. And when there was a little bit of an incident with that guy, boom, they were there. There’s 35 of them surrounding him more pro more police, really the protestors, it felt like, and they were just, you know, getting rid of them and moving them out of the scene. So I expect more of that. You know, it doesn’t, it doesn’t feel to me just from what I’ve seen, sort of like the same environment, maybe you disagree the same, uh, sort of calling for blood that we experienced just a year ago.
Uh, actually six months ago with the Shovan trial, it’s just a different, you know, different environment. I think a lot of people are recognizing that the facts in this case are much more unequivocal, much more obvious that he’s innocent. And so that big screeching sound that we heard all last year has been slowly evaporating away. Thankfully, now we saw that that gentleman was just arrested for some disorderly conduct charges, but the disorderly conduct is not only happening out on the streets. It’s all show coming into judge Schrader’s inbox in the form of some pretty nasty emails and the daily mail aggregated many of these today. And so I’m going to take a look at some of them with you. Now we saw that this one came in on October, says, your honor, I don’t know. I didn’t know that under your black robes of justice, you wear a right white robe of the clan.
There is no way a fair trial can be heard under your supervision. Better yet resign out of state Wisconsinite. I didn’t know that under your black robes of justice, you wore the white robe of the clan. Ooh that’s that’s below the belt there, buddy. Boy, out-of-state Wisconsinite. All right, what else do we have? It says this one came in October 26, says enjoy your term, judge. It’s going to be your last. If I ever meet you in person, I fully intend to spit directly in your face. Regardless the cost, your disgusting that’s from a Doug Ray. That’s from a Doug rate. And presumably that guy is well under investigation. Now I would imagine that, that he is Doug Ray by the officials out of Wisconsin. Let’s see what else we have that judge Schrader guts. So somebody sent this as, so I can’t call the wounded.
Men victims says your judge one day, hope his kids become victims to the most heinous homicide known to man. So he feels the pain and we’ll call this. Can you believe this saying that he hopes the judge? He says racist B word. You’re going to pay for pay back for your statement. They are. That is probably a crime in Wisconsin called threatening and intimidating. I would guess something like this might be investigated as a criminal violation. We have another one here says wow way. Wow. Way to name a white skinhead hot head to be a judge. No wonder they burned down your city. Uh, this was sent to Laura Yoakam. I really wish they identified who sent these. These people should be outed, but Laura Yokum is somebody presumably works over for the courts. And then this was posted somewhere. Please fire this racist judge. Schrader is a disgrace to the law. Remove him from any judicial proceedings. Can you believe this garbage?
All right. Let’s let’s take a look. John, somebody named John Q public says, oh, we can’t even read this. This is just murderous. Little white supremacists. Are you an effing Nazi judge? Because it sure does sound like you’re either a Nazi or a slime turd, Nazi slime, turd, or you are a senile old dementia patient because there was no other way to explain you barring people from referring to the victims of blank, lipped, Rittenhouse as blanking victims of a blanking crime, despite them bling blinking murdered by a Nazi twerp who admits he took up arms, came to our city and f-ing shot people and then ran away. Oh, but you will allow them to be called looters and terrorists. Clearly you hope to prejudice the jury to let that boot looking blank hole walk you effing Nazi apologists, you blank out of your own blank unit wit that’s from John Q public.
His preferred method of contact is email. So that’s good to note. So that’s what the judge is going through. And, um, it’s not just limited to the judge. We also are going to hear from drew Hernandez. Of course, drew Hernandez was this fellow who actually was on scene the night of August 25th, when all this went down and he says that he’s also getting some threats. He’s been making the rounds. I think this was on real America with Dan ball. And he was also in this next clip that we’re going to play where we’re going to hear from Joe Rogan in the next slide. So here is drew Hernandez talking about his experience after he testified. And he was there at the scene with body camera footage, and he had a lot of videos that were actually transmitted. And I think admitted into evidence. He was also very aggressive with the prosecutor said specifically that he did not, you know, he did disagreed with all of the characterizations, the prosecutor proffered his way and they got into fights over semantics and words. And so here is drew Hernandez talking to real America with Dan ball.
When I got off the stand, uh, I already had DMS in my Instagram and on Twitter and on Facebook, people telling me to kill myself saying I defended a murderer. People sending me pictures with human beings with targets on their back. I mean, that’s pretty obvious. And also people saying, I hope you get shot. Uh, so I mean, it’s, it’s just, it’s interesting to hear how the prosecutor was trying to discredit me saying that I am biased because I’m saying Antifa and BLM are writing in the footage because they are, that’s not biased, but these, these threats just prove who these people are. They’re there. There was nothing peaceful about Kenosha, even right now. There’s a reason why they called 500 national guard out there right now because they’re preparing for more riots. There was nothing peaceful about Kenosha at all. From the very beginning I was there day one, two days before Kyle Rittenhouse even showed up to Kenosha.
And Dan, you want to know who showed up with rifles first? It was the writers. I have that on film, Jewish life. Everybody could go see it on my Twitter right now, two days before COVID Rittenhouse even showed up with a rifle, the writers showed up with rifles. That’s the true context of the story. They showed up. Kyle Rittenhouse, didn’t up to commit crimes or commit violent acts. The rioters did two days before he even got there. They were burning down buildings. They were committing arson. They were looting. They were vandalizing to the point where two days later, when individuals, citizens were boarding up their windows, they were writing children live here. Who does that for peaceful protestors. Dan, no, you do that when there are violent criminals in your town.
All right. So that was drew Hernandez over with real America with Dan ball. And he’s, you know, he’s got a point, you know, the city was basically in total chaos. That’s why they went there in the first place. And the story matches the same story that we heard from any other individuals that even the government called his witnesses. Many of them said it was a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday thing. And this all happened on Tuesday, which was of course the 25th. So, uh, Hernandez there with a good quote. And I wanted to wrap up this segment with this final clip of Joe Rogan now sort of weighing in on all this. And you know, he’s got a huge audience and you know, he gets sort of pilloried a lot, I think, in the mainstream media. But I mean, look, look at his numbers. It’s like 11, 12 million people an episode versus under a hundred now under a million for most of the other mainstream media news anchors.
It’s no wonder, they’re so upset with him and the impact that he’s having on American culture, a lot of people are rallying behind these people. We see that the ricotta stream is crossing a hundred thousand viewers because people are plugged into this. The old media is becoming legacy. They’re not relevant anymore. And they’re flipping out about it, which is why they want new regulations. They want Facebook to sort of, you know, bend the knee and they want more regulations for all the internet people so that they can get back in controlled tangent side tirade there. But here is the clip of, uh, Alex Jones. We have, uh, this woman’s name is Blair white. We have, I believe she’s a YouTuber. We have Tim pool. We have Tim pools, whole crew. We have drew Hernandez, drew age. We just heard from him. And then Joe Rogan shows up. And so somebody who’s a part of Tim pool’s crew says, uh, specifically, you know, talking about Joseph Rosenbalm and talking about all of his criminal charges and Joe Rogan calls it out. He says, listen, anybody who is a Kyle Rittenhouse innocence denier. My word is somebody who is in a cult. Here’s Joe Rogan, the guy,
And he’d get all his charges dismissed on previous days before
He had a DUI charge dropped, but he was a career criminal. I mean, he went down for domestic abuse, prowling trespassing, two DUI, felony burglary, two counts of carrying a firearm while intoxicated.
Yep. We’re in a cult called jealous
We are in a car. This information is not based on reality. This is a left wing cult and they’re, they’re pumping stuff out. And then they’re confirming this belief. They’re, they’re all getting together and they’re ignoring contrary evidence. They’re ignoring any narrative that challenges their belief about what happened. And they’re not looking at it realistically, they’re only looking at it. Like you would look at it. If you’re in a cult weird left, it will cult as a religion. That’s just like, it’s just older. Now I had a bit about it.
Well, I called them. All right. And so you can see there’s drew H back there in the background. And I forgot to mention that Michael malice was also there. So it was like, it’s like a lot of big names, uh, you know, big, big personalities on the internet, all hanging around in one, uh, one trailer, which looks pretty nice, or one, what is this, an RV look at that got a microwave in there and nice couches. And it looks pretty cozy. So, uh, interesting way to do things, but, uh, very interesting, Joe Rogan, it’s a, it’s a left-wing cult. It’s an effing cult, everybody. And this is a big problem because they’re not connected to reality. They’re listening to whatever and believing whatever. That’s not based on what’s happening actually in the world. So very interesting perspective, you know, oftentimes Joe Rogan, doesn’t, doesn’t directly weigh in onto legal criminal issues.
And so for, for him to do so, and then to label what we’re all seeing so eloquently the way he does, then I think that, I think that leaves a mark that actually has some impact. So Joe Rogan, that was a lot of the updates from court today in written house. Then we have jurors asking questions. So today we got several new juror questions were released in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, and we’ve got copies of them and we can take a look. What did the jurors want to know? And this is something that can happen to, uh, in any criminal trial. Basically the jurors can go back and, you know, have questions about stuff that they’re looking at. Can we get a copy of that? Can we review that evidence? What did that guy say again? Can we get those transcripts? Can you blow this up?
Can we go to the bathroom? You know, how does this work? And so what they do here in Wisconsin is they write a little form that looks like this until they say they just have a form case number, question, number, presiding, juror, date, and time. And they just probably have a stack of these, like a bunch of sticky notes and they just fill them out. And so back on November 16th, two days ago, we had a, at 10, 17 in the morning pay close attention to the time. Cause we’re going to get another question later in the afternoon says, can we have 11 copies of pages, one through six of the jury instructions and you’d go, oh, that’s interesting little question there, 10 in the morning. They want the jury instructions, but not all of it. Just pages one through six judge must have said, oh, sure, yeah, here you go.
11 copies of them. They must’ve only had one. They all wanted to review them because we probably have somebody that wants to go fluid, blind by line. And then they are now going to be delivered with their own individual copies. So all morning goes by. We fast forward throughout the day, 2 45, that same afternoon. Another question comes in, what is it? Well, we now need 11 copies of pages, seven through 36. So we’re going to need a lot more of that. So give us the rest of the documents of the jury instructions. And this came in same day, but back later at 2 45 and so 11 more copies. Now, if you notice, it seems like the handwriting might be a little bit different here. So from the first request, that’s clipped on top, the second request down below, sort of clipped down below. And so this might actually be two different people writing this request or not.
I mean, they’re writing differently, sort of a pseudo cursive. This bottom one is, you know, the S’s look like an S this, a cursive S versus a regular S we have 11 copies. We have a little bit of a bend at the top of this one and here. So we don’t know if, if different people are writing different questions or what’s going on, because the next questions that we’re going to get all look like they’re from different jurors. And so, you know, we, the reason why we’re taking a look at this as we’re sort of asking ourselves, how are they structuring themselves? Is there one person in charge? Who’s the writer of things? Is there a scribe is, uh, are they taking turns, okay, you get an hour to make your pitch to the rest of us. And then we make a decision and you write when you talk, and then they pass it around.
Okay, now you’re done talking. Now you’re the scribe and you’re the talker. And so how’s it working? What are they doing? Is there anything we can glean out of this? Not really, but it is kind of fun to play around with it anyways. So we do know, and we’re going to get to a clip here in a minute that judge Schrader is allowing the jurors now to take home all of the questions or all of the pages of these documents. So pages one through six and pages seven through 36. That is the whole burrito there. Everything is going. And so, uh, at least for one juror, one juror can take it home. She asked and he’s going to allow her to take it home, but at least they all have their own copies. So let’s take a look at that. Okay. Shall we? It’s 36 pages, little bit of heavy lifting.
Bear with me. I want to go through this because this is what the jury is looking at their S there, they’ve got a stack of 36 pages. Many people are wondering what the heck is taking so long, myself included. I was joking on local. Somebody should bring a cattle prod tomorrow. Let’s go, let’s go. Let’s get to it. Cause we’re all out here waiting on pins and needles. We want a verdict on this case and we want the right one though. So now we’re asking ourselves, what are they doing in there? They’ve got 36 pages now of this document. They might be going through it in a lot of detail. And so we need to pay close attention to what’s happening. This was filed back on November 15th. You can see opening instructions. Let’s go through it. Most of this is pretty much, you know, boiler plate language.
It’s almost all copied and pasted. And so I’m not going to read it verbatim, but what I want to show is sort of the pieces of this. You you’re not, I don’t want to read every pair. I’m not going to read 36 pages. Here were both jumped out the window, but I want to show you the different pieces of the puzzle that go into these 36 pages so that we can say, oh, okay, maybe they’re taking this section, taking this chunk of a provocation, and they’re comparing it with this chunk of self-defense. It’s sort of like the different components of baking a cake. Now we’re going to look at the milk. Uh, I’m not, I’m not going to explain how we extract the milk out of the utter of the cow or how we, you know, do what we do with that. But we are going to talk about the milk as an ingredient.
Okay. So hope. Hopefully that makes sense. So we get some of the introductory stuff here says, if any member of the jury has an impression, you can disregard a of my opinion. The judge is saying, if you have an opinion about my opinion, disregard that, you know, you’re here, you are to do your duty, blah, blah, blah, information, not evidence on information is nothing more than a written accusation. So they’re talking about that formal document. The information is the complaint, the charges also the, the, the defendant pled not guilty to those. So don’t consider those as evidence of guilt. There are charges. Then we talk about the privileges. So what privileges exist, self-defense the state’s burden of proof in this case is that they must prove by evidence, which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense. Then they give us a whole section on the general principles.
He believed that there was actual or imminent unlawful interference with his person believe the amount of force that he used or threatened to use was necessary to terminate the interference and his beliefs were reasonable. Okay. And so now we have, you can see sort of a bunch of subsections here. So they give us if you’re thinking about this, like an outline, think about sort of each one of these paragraphs, almost being tucked in underneath some of the other subsections. So hopefully that makes sense here. The defendant’s beliefs were reasonable. Well, how do we know what reasonable means while they give us a lot of explanation here? Uh, whether it was reasonable, whether a defendant, a similar person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed that if they were in Kyle shoes under the same circumstances that it was reasonable, right? So they give them some, some guidelines.
And so now the jurors are going to say, okay, well, let’s go to this paragraph and they’ll say, well, maybe he should have run. Maybe he should have run away, but then they can go to this paragraph. There is no duty to retreat. However, you may consider whether he had the opportunity to retreat, whether it retreat was feasible or whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat. Okay. So they can consider all those things. So again, a bunch of different elements, then we get a big one provocation. You should also consider if the defendant provoked it person who engages in unlawful conduct that might provoke other people is not allowed to use self, to force a self-defense and deadly use of force. So then as you can see, this goes on and on and on, right? We are only folks on page three right now, Ms.
Spent like three minutes on it, crimes requiring intent. Then we talk about intent. Intent is a very diff difficult thing to talk about. Intent is different than motive. See that? How do you decide about intent? You can not look into a person’s mind. So then you’ve got to sort of look at it as a totality of the circumstances. Then we get into the various counts. Now those were the general overarching principles. Then we have multiple counts that we have to go through that have their own specific instructions. So jurors, as you’re thinking about self-defense and provocation and a duty to retreat, and whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable or not, whether he had intent to kill all these other things, we now need to go through count by count and talk about each one of those specific crimes. Oh my goodness. This is a serious legal, analytical problem here.
Isn’t it count one first degree, reckless homicide now statutory definition of the crime. They tell us what it is. They tell us the state’s burden of proof. They literally break down the statute word by word. What does cause mean? Well, defendant’s act was a substantial factor in producing the death. Okay. And what is criminal reckless conduct mean? It defines that for us. So they go through and they say, listen, if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that all three of those elements have been proven and that he was not acting in self-defense. You should find him guilty of first degree, reckless homicide, if you’re not satisfied, not guilty. So it’s just sort of a math equation that’s happening. If you say, uh, caused the death of another criminally reckless conduct conduct created a risk of death or great bodily harm, risk was unreasonable and substantial.
And he was aware that it created an unreasonable at substantial risk of death. And all of those things are true and he’s not privileged by self-defense, which we explained on the prior couple pages, then you can subtract and do the addition and multiply it all and guilty or not guilty depending on how you do it. So that’s a lot, that’s a lot for people to sort of, you know, work through. It’s a big, complex legal problem. And this is a complex legal case, which is why it has been always something I’ve been sort of skeptical about by making this something where we talk about everything under the sun, Kyle Rittenhouse, his background, his driver’s license, where he’s from, what he’s doing, you know, his school is all this stuff. It makes it way more complicated for the jurors. And we’re seeing how that looks. Somebody is taking home this entire list of instructions, and they’re going to go through it just like we’re doing here probably a lot more in detail.
So they talk now about the counts two and three recklessly endangering safety, same framework. Here, we talk about the statutory definition. We talk about the state’s burden. And then we talk about the elements. Don’t need to go through those again. Then they talk about special rules of self-defense as to Richard McGuinness, which is a good thing they’re saying there is evidence that he was acting in self-defense as to Rosa Joseph Rosenbaum. The fact that the law may allow the defendant to use force in self-defense Astor Rosenbalm does not necessarily mean that he was reckless with McGuinness. You must consider the law of self-defense in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct as to McGuinness was criminally reckless conduct, which showed utter disregard. But the defendant does not have a privilege of self-defense asked him again, as the law of self-defense allows the defendant to threaten or intentionally use force against another only F and then we get some more elements there.
If the defendant reasonably, reasonably believed that he was necessary to prevent imminent death, he may use that force. So the jurors are just going to go through here, check that one, check that one, check that one. We go over to count four. We have another conversation, different crimes to consider. So I think we’re talking about some of these lesser included. Yeah. So we have, if there, if the, if you’re not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of first degree, intentional homicide, you must then consider whether or not the defendant is guilty of second degree, intentional homicide, or first degree, reckless homicide, which are less serious degrees of criminal homicide. So those are all the lesser included charges that are now being in, uh, brought in because the prosecution is like, oh, we may not get them on that top line. So we need all of these other lines.
Then they give us a self-defense instruction applied to this case. The effect of the law of self-defense is the defendant is not guilty of any homicide offense. If the defendant reasonably believed that he was preventing unlawful interference with his person, believe force was necessary to be used. And it was all done reasonably, we get some other elements. What is self-defense right. And we’re still going folks like w we could go through this at a very slow pace. I certainly don’t want to do that. I just want to show you how much is in here elements. Now, at first degree, intentional homicide, we get some more F more, uh, conversations about making sure that the jury is unanimous before considering the offense of second degree homicide. So not only do they have multiple different lesser includes to charge to consider, they also have to go through it in a certain order.
So they got to go, okay, first degree, homicide. We’re going to go through all of this analysis. Self-defense provocation intent. Blah-blah-blah everything we’ve talked about. Can we agree on that? Probably not. How do you get 12 people to agree on lunch? So then they just say, well, okay, well, uh, no we say no on that. So they got to go back down to the other one second degree, intentional homicide, do the whole thing all over again with those different elements. And then if they disagree on that, do it all again, with the idea of looking for reckless, whatever that charges for all second degree, intentional homicide, first degree, intentional homicide.
And there was another reckless somewhere. Anyway, you get the point. A lot of work is going into this elements of second degree, intentional homicide. We have a jury decision, same conversation there, state burden of proof, another jury decision section, we’re still moving on. Now we get over to count five. We have attempted first degree, intentional homicide crimes to consider intentional homicide, a whole nother self-defense section here. Then we have, uh, attempted first degree, intentional homicide. The state must prove that Rittenhouse intended to kill someone else. He did acts, which demonstrate unequivocally under all circumstances that he had formed the intent and would have caused the death of the other, except for intervention of another person.
That’s the attempted charge. And then actual beliefs about whether the force used was necessary. A whole separate conversation about use of force and was that necessary, right? Being kept saying, you could have run away and you didn’t and crowds kept saying, you should have just dropped your guns, your little coward and fought like a man. If you, if you knew what was good for you. So now the jurors are having to ask themselves about that was the use of force necessary was, was shooting necessary in order to accomplish the defendant’s goals, it keeps going, it keeps going. It keeps going attempted. Now second degree, intentional homicide. So if you can’t get first degree, then you got to go down to second degree and you got to do it all over again. State’s burden of proof. We get for counts. One through five, we get using or possessing a dangerous weapon.
We talk about the burden of proof. They give us a little nugget here about the presumption of innocence, which is incredibly important. They give us a sentence about the state’s burden of proof, which is nuts. The burden of establishing every fact necessary to constitute guilt is upon the state. Before you can return a verdict of guilty, the evidence must satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt. That defendant is guilty. Oh, okay. That’s it. All right. So they give us the meaning of reasonable doubt. And this is what lawyers make arguments about all the time, right? The way that I explain that is if there is any doubt in your mind, that is based in reason, it’s not enough. They got to get beyond that. If you can come up with a doubt as to a person’s guilt and you can make a reasonable argument about that doubt, it’s not enough. They’ve got to get beyond any reasonable doubt.
That’s a high standard did you can have doubt about virtually anything. So they give us about a paragraph of that. Now evidence is also defined here. So if the jurors say, well, what is evidence? They have a sort of a glossary where they can come back and take a look. Improper questions, disregard entirely any question that the court did not allow to be answered charges disposed of during trial. At the beginning of this trial, I dismissed count seven and others. Don’t worry about those struck in testimony during the trial, the court has ordered certain testimony, be stricken, disregard that as well. An exhibit becomes evidence only when received by the court remarks of counsel disregard the remarks attorneys. They’re not evidence closing arguments of counsel. Now their evidence, their, their statements are conclusions and opinions, but they are not evidence. Judicially notice facts, statements attributed to the defendant, weight of the evidence, jurors knowledge.
We have expert opinion and testimony. So a lot of things to consider credibility of various witnesses. So what if a jury was saying, you know, I heard what gauge gross crew said, but I think he’s kind of a liar. And the jurors say, I’m not supposed to. I’m not so sure what to do about that because he said something up there on the stand. And he swore under oath. That that was true. He said that he saw Kyle re-read the gun, but Kyle Rittenhouse said, he didn’t, rerock the gun. And so what am I supposed to do about this? Because both these people testified under oath. They both swore on a Bible or whatever that I am going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me, God. Yes, I well, and they took the stance. So now we have a problem because they’re in disagreement.
So what do we do? And the court tells them, well, here’s what you got to do. It’s the duty of the jury now to scrutinize and weigh the testimony of the witnesses and determine the effect of the evidence as a whole. You are the sole judges of credibility, the believability, and you have to give weight to their testimony. And here’s how you do it. You talk about whether they have an interest or a lack of interest in results of the trial. So, uh, uh, gage gross, quits, I think certainly does. Doesn’t he, he’s got about 10 million interests in it. The witnesses conduct their appearance or their demeanor on the witness stand might also have an impact. Gage gross grew. It’s got little bit, you know, aggressive from time to times, but guess what? So did drew Hernandez, the clearness or the lackness or the clearness of the witnesses recollections?
How much did they recall? How quick was the recall? Did they seem like they were scripted or did this seem like they were digging down deep in their memory banks, the opportunity the witness had for observing and knowing the matters that they’re testifying about the reasonableness of their testimony, the impairment intelligence of the witness bias or prejudice possible motives or falsifying testimony, like a big fat lawsuit. We also have all other facts and circumstances during the trial, which tend to either support or discredit the testimony. So the jurors now are having to weigh all the witnesses we heard against these credibility factors also. So they’re saying, well, you know, gauge and, and, uh, drew. And we had, uh, ant Huber and we had Graham Bo out there. And we had a lot of people come through this ordeal. And many of them said a lot of things, but now they have to weigh the credibility.
And so now they go through their memory bank and they say reasonableness of the testimony, uh, the apparent intelligence of a grandpa, uh, we have bias or prejudice of aunt Huber, and the list goes on and on. So there’s a lot to get to and we’re still not done. Final slide. Last two pages says the verdict is to be submitted. A separate verdict is to be reached on each count. It must be unanimous. This is criminal, and you must return a unanimous verdict. If you need to communicate, send a note through the bailiff signed by the presiding juror, which is what we got. Court will answer any questions in writing orally here or in court. After you’ve reached the verdict presiding jurors, going to notify the bailiff that a verdict has been reached, everyone will return to the courtroom. The verdict will be read into the record in open court. The court may ask each of you, if you agree with the verdict polling, the jurors 36 whopping pages and jurors are now going to be able to take those home. Let’s take a listen in to what judge Schrader was talking about at the conclusion of the day regarding this issue, because the jurors didn’t come to a conclusion obviously, and they’ve got a lot more to think about here is what judge Schrader said
There that says the pack defense. So, uh, I know it is reading manners, but, um, now the record will reflect that I, uh, it’s probably a bad habit to ask the jury any questions. Um, and, uh, you can do that. You can get away with that a lot. And then all of a sudden you learn your lesson. Although I don’t think any harm done, but, uh, I typically do that as you know, throughout the trial. And, uh, I don’t, don’t usually have this situation. Um, but anyway, uh, and then I did it a second time, but anyway, um, the record will reflect that when I asked, uh, when the juror inquired, if they, if she could take the instructions home, which also means they take the instructions home. Uh, I didn’t see reactions from the state side. I did see a way of the head by Mr. Richards urging me to say no, but I did anyway. So did you want to make a record on it?
It’s going to be the old dictionary game and they start to finding words and things like that. The,
Yeah, well actually, no, because they could do that at home without having the paperwork and instead they have the wonderful, concise jury instructions, uh, that,
All right. So judges kind of say, it’s not a big concern there, Mark Richards. Cause they can do that anyways, which I mean, come on, it’s 36 pages. So they’re not going to remember all of that and take that home and you know, look, this is an issue that you fight for depending on what side you’re on. So in, in some situations the defense is like, yeah, oh yeah, let them take them home. Yeah, they should absolutely be allowed to take them home. And uh, in fact we should make, you know, really, uh, extra copies of we’ll email it to them. We’ll fax it to them. We’ll airdrop it to them. Uh, we’ll have Crouse compress it for them, whatever it takes, we’ll get them, everything that they need because you’re making, you know, an argument that requires that you’re making a highly technical argument. You’re trying to thread the needle legally.
You’re saying all of this stuff wouldn’t have happened. If there’s one little contingency in the law, we went a different way. And so as a defendant and you’re now making that argument, you’re saying, yeah, you think about it, please think about it because what the government wants you to do is just walk in and say guilty because they just, oh no, it’s nuts and bolts. Everything went by the book. I mean, we do, we arrest all people, thousands of people for DUIs every year. So, so yeah, it’s all by the book. We did everything appropriately. Everything was in perfect working order. Nothing to think about, just go in and vote guilty and jurors go in. And it sounds like it was in working order. So oftentimes then as a defendant, you say, no, it wasn’t, it wasn’t working. This was wrong. This was wrong. This was wrong.
But you got to get the jurors to pump the brakes and think about it. You’re like, stop, stop, stop. Don’t listen to them. This went wrong. And you’re pounding the table on that shiny object to make sure that they can see it and you need them to slow down to see it. That’s what the prosecution is trying to argue. In this case, they want the jurors to slow down. Kyle Rittenhouse had a bunch of unlawful, pseudo, unethical, you know, camo, almost illegal things over a long period of time. And they want the jurors to think about this. This is a reckless young man who has been doing this stuff for a long time and somebody has got to stop him and you have to think about it. So they want the jury to go home and just think about provocation and self-defense and necessary force and blah, blah, blah.
The defense wants just a gut reaction. You saw that it was a stinkin war zone. He was being chased by three maniacs. He had to shoot them and kill them to live. That’s it? That’s all you need to know. We want a gut reaction from him in this case. We want them to go and say, yeah, if that were my 17 year old son, if that were me, if I were protecting my business, that is justice. Stop getting convoluted with all these other red herrings and stop turning this into something that it isn’t. So Mark Richards, you know, kind of meandering, sh probably shouldn’t go home with them. And the judge says, well, they could take it home anyways. And so now this one juror, if only one of them is taking it home is going to go and be, you know, a Rhodes scholar from Oxford tomorrow morning as it relates to the jury instructions.
And she’s going to have a bunch of stinking notes on it. I’m sure. And she’s going to go back into the panel and she’s going to tell everybody, actually, you know, that meme out there of that, you know, whatever that dude is, uh, actually, um, actually right, we’re going to have a road scholar now with the jury book, the jury instruction saying, uh, I’m in charge because I know the rules better than you do. And anybody who is now, uh, contesting her or him is, is now going to be able to be overwritten because she’s just going to referral refer to the manual because she is now in charge. She’s the rule keeper. She’s the hall monitor of the jury. That’s why you could have a problem with this. Now we have the judge ultimately allowing it here. Is that clip?
Uh, I’ve. I have to say a way, I don’t know about you guys, but I watched a little TV in the morning and in the evening and some of the greatest legal minds in the country, I am delighted to say, I agree with us that the instructions are very confusing, but, um, uh, so, um, I don’t think it would be appropriate for the, for them to bring their notes home. No, you’re right about that. No notes to go home. That’s correct. So no notes to go home, but they may take their instructions. If they have notes on their instructions, I’m going to let them take those. Okay. Thank you. Uh, anything else? Okay. See you in the morning.
All right. So the judge said if there’s notes on their instructions that they were writing on all morning or all day, the last several days, and they can take those home with them and can they write notes on them at home and bring those notes back as somebody checking those things. And are we going to get a, a jury instruction Nazi in charge of the jury panel tomorrow? And if we do, what side is that jury instruction Nazi on? We’ll have to find out. So that’s what happened with jury instructions today. We’ll get more tomorrow jurors also today had additional questions about the video footage and the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, still waiting for a verdict. And we had question number three, come in. This was received November 17th. A couple of questions came in that morning, presiding juror, still number 54, 10 35 in the am says, do we view videos in private or in the courtroom?
And we got that question yesterday. We actually deciphered a lot of that. And you can see the judge sort of scribbles back on here on the note courtroom. And we have, it looks like his signature. It says, do you need to know exact exhibit number of video or photos or photo? And you can see this handwriting obviously looks completely different than some of the other handwriting we looked at in the prior segment. Judge says, uh, need description of what your, of what you would like signed off on by the judge need description of what you would like 10 35. So it sounds like they want to view the videos. We talked about that a lot yesterday. They also, but we didn’t see this yesterday. It’s now been received and publish. Do you need to know the exact exhibitor number of photos? We talked about that yesterday and they said, yes.
Yes they do. So then we get further questions because we got an answer. Now, do you need to know the exact video? Nope. We just need a general description of what you want. Perfect juror say good. Cause we want to look at all the videos. So question number four then comes in and says, well, here’s what we need there. Judge. We want to view the video starting with Mr. Gross, crits his interview with Mr. Rittenhouse, which started early on in the evening. Right? All the way to 10 seconds after Ms. Gross, Gruet shooting in regular and slow motion. Also, can we stop and start the video at our request, which is not really an ideal question in my reading of it. To me, it sounds like they want to know if there’s a relationship here between written house and gross quits. They want to know more about that last second eye contact that was made or that last second interaction between Rittenhouse and gross quits gross.
Garrett said he reacted. Kyle said he didn’t, there’s this missing bullet that turned into this, this a story that was never found the defense communicated that, but they still want to know more about this. Remember the gross coeds said that Rittenhouse was a stooge because gross grits of course is a highly qualified EMT. Somebody with a lot of credentials and a very compelling skillset. He was qualified. Rittenhouse was not. And so as Rittenhouse was running around, actually helping people grow his crew, it’s said something like you’re a get outta here, effing, stooge, something like that. So that all came out. But did Kyle want to shoot gross crits? Did he do anything like this? Why do they want to take a look at that interaction again? And it’s not just the shooting, it’s the entire interaction it’s from start to finish. It’s from the interview with Rittenhouse to 10 seconds after the shooting, they want the whole thing. That’s what I can gather.
So they think maybe that there was something going on there and that doesn’t lead me to believe that they think this is a case of self-defense sort of implies that maybe they think that Kyle wanted to shoot the guy, or it could also imply that maybe they think that that grows crits had a motive to go and attack. Kyle could go the other way, right? It could be that they’re taking a look at this situation. And they’re saying, you know, gross Kuwait’s was on the stand. He’s claiming to be this really credible person who is out there trying to stop an active shooter. But earlier in that day he was calling him an effing stooge. And so maybe it’s actually the alternate. Maybe it’s actually the gross. Pruitt’s had a bug up his butt to go and shoot Rittenhouse. He says, oh, this is my day to be a hero.
I’m going to call this guy an active shooter. And I’m just going to go shoot him because he had already thought he was a stooge. He had already thought that this person was somebody who shouldn’t be there. Maybe he had an ill motive. So you can see how this question might split both ways. And again, the jurors, they want to start it and stop it at their own requests. Oh, at their own. They want to just play, turn it, rewind it. 30, 35 different ways. Hey Joe, come over here. I got a new angle for you. Hey Sue, get your butt over here. Look at this one. You think that’s a gun? Is that a gun or is that a pixel? Ah, as a defense attorney, you’re just like, can you just it’s it’s all. Self-defense it doesn’t matter what the pixel looks like. It’s all self defense question.
Number five comes in. They want some more video. And I think that the handwriting is still a little bit different here. It says view the video, starting with Mr. Gross grits. Also here, question number five. This was received at 1140, along with that prior question on 1117. So both of those came in together and it looks like, ah, maybe I can’t tell on the handwriting here, but it says event one, please prepare Mr. Rosenbaum shooting. Also they want multiple videos. They want the FBI Ariel with all the persons of interest mark. We saw that. And so there were actually two versions of that. They had the government’s case and they had the defense attorney’s case. They both had their POS marked on there. Also they want the drone video of that magical drone footage that was ultra compressed, accidentally by crowds. They’re going to want to take a look at that.
The judge let that in zoomed in image of the still after Mr. Rittenhouse put down the fire extinguisher. Okay. So that little maneuver from prosecutor binger, where he’s walking around, pointing firearms at jurors, dropped down his water bottle and uh, they wanted it to see that right. That probably left a mark full events video in regular and slow motion. We will request when ready, whatever that means. So that was yet another question. And the big one that we spent a lot of time talking about yesterday was this drone video, which was, you know, accidentally compress, but it’s not my fault. I’m not a technical wizard. I have no idea how any of this stuff works. If I did, I’d be, wouldn’t be a prosecutor, but I have multiple disciplinary, uh, different pieces of software on my computer that are for converting and compressing videos. Here is a clip from that segment.
PBS news hour shows us that they were trying to play an exhibit. This is a screen. This is actually a video. And you can see right on their desktop, that they had a number of different folders. You see desktop trial exhibits, and it looks like they have it in closing. So right on their desktop, you can see on this windows PC, they’re in a sub folder called closing exhibit 1 73, 62, 84, blah, blah, blah. And so we’re going to see that Krauss or whoever is running this computer is now going to click back into the desktop. And it’s going to take us to the actual desktop. We’re going to see what is on there, right? And a desktop shows you stuff or right on your desktop. You get to see it. For example, this water bottle is on my desktop. I can see it on my computer. I can see OBS. I can see zoom right here. Both of those need to be deleted. My desktop is a little bit cluttered right now, but you get the drift of this thing. You see it, you know, it’s there. You probably know what it does here is James Kraus who is going to be clicking over to the desktop. Now let’s see what he sees.
He clicks the, the, uh, exhibit desktop clicks that boom what’s there. He did handbrake and format factory. He has trial exhibits. You can see his entire file structure folks right next to his exhibits folder on the desktop are the file compression software softwares. Oh, somebody named mark Polito, I think is in law school. Mark, shout out to mark sent this over on Twitter, says Twitter verse helped us solve the mystery drone footage. I made this for you all Tucker Carlson show from August 31st and crop the top 236 pixels to remove the copyright. Hopefully it helps praying for Kyle, the judge, the jury, and everyday justice. God bless. And so he sent this image over and I want to take a quick look at it because it is pretty interesting. It kind of shows you some of what the arguments were yesterday. And yesterday, we spent some time talking about the various different formats of videos and sort of HD and wide frame and all of that.
And so mark Polito did a nice job with this and put this together, says on Tucker Carlson, you see here, John Pierce, this dork of a lawyer who, uh, really botched the case badly at the beginning, uh, on August 34 first went on to Tucker Carlson show and he played this video and you’ll notice that it’s a full sort of, uh, uh, HD video. It’s 1920 by 10 80. And what you’ll see is that we have this, uh, this little copyright mark up here that says Brandon, Raymond, uh, unaired Kenosha with Tuesday. And so that’s presumably that same footage that Krauss was screaming about yesterday, but he’s saying, uh, you know, Tucker Carlson had this footage and we tried to download it and it was bad. And then somebody airdropped it to me and I’m not a technical wizard. So I don’t know what the hell happened, but that’s what his argument was.
So Mr. Polito now shows us that if you go back and you actually take this image out of the Tucker Carlson frame here, if we just sort of clip this out, we crop that puppy out right there and we make it its own image. You’ll see that it is actually 1920 by 10 80, right? It actually is a full HD video format. And so what you now have is on this top, right image, you have the prosecution, they’re unedited footage, which is now 1920 by 8 44. When you add this copyright section over here, that comes from the Tucker Carlson video, and you sort of add that to the top frame. It adds an addition. It adds 236 pixels to the crop footage and makes it the full video. So somebody, if somebody basically got the video and then cropped it cropping the top by 236 pixels removes the copyright and the Hocus Pocus now matches the prosecution’s video.
So essentially showing that there was absolutely editing and cropping and manipulation of the evidence that went on well done there. So we have that now and the prosecutor, I’m sorry, the judge then excuse to the jurors for the day. No deliberation jurors want to see a lot of this evidence. A lot of the drone evidence, no further rulings on this. No questions about a motion to dismiss with or without prejudice, no questions about, uh, any potential days of reckoning coming for the prosecutors. But the judge says, thank you, jurors. I’ll see you back here tomorrow at 9:00 AM. Here. He is how he closes the day out.
The records clerk
At the audio cut out, but he picks up here soon. Kyle’s fixing that tie up,
Looking sharp, good afternoon, the most patient people in America. Um, we’re going to break for the day and I’m going to ask you to turn tomorrow at nine. Is that going to be okay? And I know we’re over our time, uh, by, uh, that I talked about initially, um, and, uh, your, your magnificent insurance, um, please adhere to the same rules, read, watch, or listen to any account of the trial. And, um, don’t discuss the case with anyone, not even with your fellow jurors. Think any question? Okay. Thank you. See what tomorrow?
No questions, judge. All right, so they’re excused. They’re going to be back tomorrow. 9:00 AM. Hopefully they have some caffeine in the morning and we get some energy and a decision tomorrow. Let’s take a look at some questions over from our friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And we’re going to get to all those super chats. Thank you everybody for your patience and all of your support here. Okay. So over watchingthewatchers.locals.com, we’ve got red beard. Who’s a new supporter over there. It says howdy. Been watching your show since the Shovan trial. Well, past time I show my support welcome aboard red beard. You have an awesome show, fantastic personality and a great community. Well, thank you. Keep doing what you’re doing. Couple of questions. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict on any count, do they have to explain why? Nope. They don’t. They can, but they don’t have to. If they were to convict Kyle on any count, I couldn’t imagine there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additionally, if the verdict was reached with a heavy emphasis on the drone footage, then could the judge decide that the footage was not sufficient evidence and call a mistrial? So I think that’s kind of what he’s doing. He’s hanging on to that. It’s in his back pocket, he’s got several different motions, a motion to dismiss with prejudice and a motion to dismiss without prejudice, both were submitted by Corey cheer FEC. And the judge has a ruled on either one of those to my knowledge. And so if they do come back and he is convicted, the judge might say, oh, you know, the conviction was on. Some evidence was based on some evidence that was really problematic. And so the judge, you know, he said yesterday that he was going to take inquiries under oath and dive into this. And so we don’t, you know, there was a lot that took place today that might have not, you know, it might, might, might’ve happened behind scenes that we’re not seeing what this judge is doing with that entire issue.
And so, you know, he may be thinking about that if they come back and the conviction arguably was on the basis of bad evidence being submitted, the judge may decide that he can’t let that stand and take it away from them. We’ll see. Uh, let’s see, we’ve got another one. My Google is not loading for some reason. One second here. It likes to kick me out of this. Right? We’re in the middle of a show. Happens every time. Okay. So we have another one. Okay. Now it’s working now. We’ve got Sam and Sal from car source. Rob, how long until a hung jury is usually taken duration wide. Also, do you handle insurance fraud cases? No, we don’t. Good luck guys. Good luck. We’ve got Ben Tomlinson says, uh, uh, now let me preface this by saying this is not the verdict I want, but given the recent news in the last few days, this would likely be the craziest verdict P permutation count one.
Rosenbalm hung jury. Count two McInnis, not guilty. Count three junk man. Guilty count four Huber hung jury, count five, gross grits, not guilty. Here’s why I think this would be crazy. The only guilty verdict is on the charge where there was no identified, complaining witness. And also the only racial attacker, the state, the mistrial with prejudice, not withstanding would be able to retry the homicide charges and gross grits would severely impact his civil lawsuit, although not completely killed. What do you think the likelihood of that permutation will be? That’s from Ben Tomlinson. You know, I, it’s hard for me to reconcile differences in self-defense and provocation. You know, for me, if I’m a juror, I’m going to be somebody who sort of all or nothing for the entirety of the charges, I’m going to say self-defense applies. And that encompasses everything. Which for me, it would be not guilty is across the board.
I think that other people who are not in that, who don’t believe in self, who don’t believe that the self-defense doctrine applies, if they think that maybe provocation applies, it might pop the bubble for some of those other charges. And they may be able to have more of a permutation, like the one that you’re saying. But I think that, that if you, if you hang your hat on self-defense I don’t see how you could get to a guilty on jump kick man or a, I guess that would be the only one, right? Not guilty would be the others and hung on the other charges. So I guess I don’t see how he would get to guilty on the, on that one. But I do see the, uh, the political hot, hot water that you can get into on that one. That’s a great question. Love that one.
So Viking says Kyle deserves justice and either an acquittal. If the judge continues to circus or dismissal with prejudice, the judges continued fast and loose lack of adherence to policy procedure. And most importantly, the law is jeopardizing this case on so many levels. There is some allowable discretion. However, certain items are never up for discussion or that’s from soul Viking. Good to see you soul. We have the Antica says, has the paint dried yet, yet? It’s like watching the same thing. I mean, it’s like watching the wood grain on a court wall, just sit there for six hours. It’s painful. Sean. O’Halloran says question. I meant to ask yesterday. I understand this correctly, that there’s going to be an evidentiary hearing on the drone footage with more experts after the jury has already seen the footage multiple times, everything was so confusing yesterday. So we kind of have several different things going on.
We have a discussion about how the jurors could watch the footage turns out they’re going to get a laptop, uh, and, and come in the courtroom actually. So the judge is going to let him come in the courtroom, but there that’s sort of a separate issue about how the jurors viewed the footage. There’s a separate issue about a disclosure problem, which is sort of a, it’s a flagrant foul it’s you did something so badly that you’re going to be really penalized in the case. One of those penalties might be a dismissal with, or without prejudice. And that is for the poor disclosure of that alleged drone footage saying that, you know, they gave them everything they had, they presented their case to the jurors and the defense had a subpar piece of evidence that they couldn’t prepare their defense based around. And because of that miscommunication, they were prejudiced.
They were, oh, they were harshly biased and at a serious disadvantage. And they want the penalty to be a dismissal of the case. So that’s, it’s, it’s sort of about the footage, but it’s not really about the footage. It’s about the fact that they didn’t give them key evidence in a case. There’s a penalty for that. We have a news now Wyoming says, I just can’t stop ranting about this judge repeatedly making poor decisions that could affect the trial. I guess the damage is done, but can the defense make a motion in the morning for the bailiff to inspect the jury instructions, they bring back to check it for notes and would that mean, uh, and would that be caused to dismiss them also since he ruled out they couldn’t bring home notes. I would surmise that writing notes on the instructions were count just overall.
He should have never made the decision without consultation with the attorneys, especially seeing the defense slightly shaking his head and disapproval. I agree. I don’t, I don’t think it’s a good move. I mean, you know, the judge has said a multiple, a number of times in this trial that he thinks that there is a lot of disrespect shown to jurors and he thinks that they should have more information, not less, but you have, you make a great point. I mean, what if they go back and they write a bunch of stuff on there, how could you differentiate between the two? And now if the jurors come back and they’re being scrutinized by the bailiff, let me see your notes. Let me see this, that and the other. Now they’re taking them now. They’re thinking, well, this isn’t right. You know, I’m, I’m here doing my due diligence, my, my civic duty.
And now you’re asking to see my papers. Now I’m offended. Who’s asking for that, right? And it might deviate this off. You want to limit the volatility, limit the volatility, stop anything out of the ordinary from happening. And the judge allowing them to take home notes. And all this stuff is not, not, not simplifying things. It’s complicating them. Leafy bug says I had to laugh at the moment of boomer tech talk that went on yesterday. If it continued, I’m pretty sure that someone’s 14 year old nephew. Who’s a real wizard with all these high tech gadgets would have asked to come up and fix all the malarkey. Seriously, though. Kyle deserves better than having to watch this bunch of amateurs working through their tech clueless while his future’s on the line. That was from leafy bug. That was a great comment. And we love that one on the show yesterday.
See, I love that one though. See Rowe says, Hey Rob, did you see the five jury instructions? What, if anything, can we infer from that? Uh, the jury questions. Yes, we, we went through those judge Schrader. Let a juror take the instructions home. Yeah, we talked about most of that. See rows. You’ve got your question early, but I think we got to those, uh, news now says not sure if you had any time to research the McMichael case, but the attorney today brought the motion for a mistrial for the fifth time today because there are black reverends in the audience that haven’t done anything. But sit there. I wonder how many times he’s going to bring the same motion. How many times do you have to bring a motion to preserve it for appeal? Uh, one I think and renew it a couple of times.
I mean, I have not taken a look at that news now, but I’m going to have to go take a look at that because what the heck is going on over there? All right. Let’s jump over to YouTube. We have sea of love. We got you this morning or earlier at the show, Alex six says, honestly, a bad call. If there were notes written on the instructions, they were still allowed to take it home. Ridiculous. I agree. I don’t know what this judge is doing. Joe Leonard says, if they determine after the verdict that the jury member has been watching the news and discussing the trial, what happened. So yeah, that would be a direct violation of the judge’s orders. And you know, you’d have motions to strike that juror for cause. And you’d ask for an alternate to be brought in. And the judge might do that on his own, says, stark says, can a mistrial be declared due to MSNBC, attempting to follow the jury bus?
Not that alone. You know, if they, if they, if they did something that, you know, deviated the jurors in a way that, you know, cause nine of them to now be no longer impartial then yeah. I mean the, the, the entire panel is ruined and you’d have a, you’d have a mistrial for that, but I don’t think the consequences of that of them following alone would be enough to cause a mistrial. Doug Wilson with a donation. Thank you there, Doug. We’ve got bill cook says insanely frustrating. I think the judge letting this crap devolve into chaos, hoping the jury bails him out is failing. This jury is hung. Certainly that’s from bill cook. It may be looking more and more like that. Not applicable says open thuggery by the media. Welcome to the U S S a comrade Umar says, how can the court determine whether or not jurors are sticking to their orders?
No speaking with anyone or watching the news. If not by someone watching or snitching, it’s the honor system. It’s Hey, we’re just doing our, our, uh, we’re doing our part. And if they don’t comply, then they don’t comply. Former F former Elio over on local says, I hope that ag Garland, instructs the FBI to stop harassing the parents of schools and investigate the terrorist threats. Dan Bongino calls him a Gino, the Agee in name only. I haven’t heard that one. Uh, Brian hacks says any way we can get a copy of the jury instructions as well. Yeah. So Brian, they’re all in the notes and the slides, but yeah, if you just Google it, they’re all over the internet. What are the restrictions on this? Should they be published and available to the public? Well, yeah. So how, how do we work courts towards being more transparent?
So I think it’s just with more demands, you know, I mean, they’re very slow on a lot of the technology, but we’re seeing more and more of it. I mean, more of these trials are being televised. The Shovan case, we had all of the pertinent court documents. So, you know, more of that I think is better, not less, but, uh, you know, the restrictions on this gimme jurors are not typically taking notes and, and jury instructions home and writing all over them and all that stuff. That’s typically not what happens. We have a Wolfgang Dayo says, uh, perhaps you could cover this at some point. I’ll take a look at that Wolfgang. We have, Jupa says, Rob, strange to me. The judge says that part of the reason the bus has the windows covered is so the jury won’t be swayed, but this jury is not sequestered.
So they get to go home and drive through these protests, hear the news about it seems like the best way the court could have prevented. This was to sequester the jury. I believe that part of the reason the deliberation is taking so long is because the jury is tainted. A lot of people are speculating that now Kincaid says, Rob, I lost my cool. When the judge allowed a juror to take the 36 page instruction. So my gut tells me this juror is the four post person and has a bone to pick with all the bias narratives buzzing around one possible juror tampering is not the odds of some individuals, crowdsourcing interpretations, or worse, extremely high psychology behind the judge decision today is ill-advised should be well-known to professionals on appeal. Can the defense ask for additional considerations for the jury and court procedures? Uh, no, no.
I mean it, no, they could say that the, they can say that the procedures that were used were problematic, but they can’t ask the appeals court to consider it differently. Like if the appeals court said that what the judge did was problematic, they would just remand it down for a new trial. Just do it again, but they’re not going to remand it back down and then say, uh, you know, give these new instructions to the jurors or something like that, uh, says that the violence is brewing yet. Again, no calls for peace coming out of the networks. That’s from Kincaid says, hope you’re doing well. Blaster brain says, um, uh, shout out to geo Mancy games. Who’s been in the hospital. All we just got out of surgery, thoughts and prayers, as they say, that’s from blaster brain. Yes. So shout out to geo Mancy games.
I didn’t know that was the, uh, situation there, but all of our love and prayers and thoughts and all of that good stuff goes out to geo Mancy games who is on YouTube by the way. So make sure you give him a and send some love his direction. Thanks for letting us know their blaster brain. A couple others to under seven says, Rob, no matter what, isn’t it a win-win for Kyle? I think he’s going to get an acquittal on all counts, but even if he doesn’t, the judge will pull out a mistrial card. I think there’s probably one or two lefty holdouts, but they can’t keep up the charade much longer with the overwhelming video evidence, even if they do. And there’s a hung jury. Can the judge pull out the Mistry with prejudice card override that Kyle will walk no matter what, just in time for Thanksgiving.
So look, the judge is looking like he is doing that. You know, I can’t speak to whether that’s legal or not in Wisconsin, you know, the judges judges run their courtrooms they’re judges. So they just do what they want. And it is, um, it’s up to the attorneys to make objections and to challenge it on appeal. So if the judge wants to hold that motion for a dismissal until the very end it comes and he dismisses it and he can concoct the rationale for it. It’s free to do that. Kincaid says, Hey man, you are more honest than most also it seems like the framing and the lighting are slightly different, very polished in comparison to a lot of streamers. Is that right? I am constantly adjusting the lighting. So I actually just made some different adjustments on the camera like two days ago. And I think it looks a little bit better.
The camera was on a, uh, on an auto ISO mode and I changed it to ISO 1000. And I, it’s not, it’s not as, uh, it doesn’t adjust in real time as much. So thanks for that. I, you know, I’m trying to, I’m trying to always constantly improve things. So I appreciate it. If the antique has says, I know there were, there were throngs of people are not being stupid. They’re staying warm. Do you know what the temperature is up there? I don’t, but that’s a great point. Leafy bug says didn’t Krauss throw shade at the defense for not being able to use airdrop yesterday. Well, that’s a sick burn. Why am I not surprised that he and biggie boy or apple users to be fair? However, Richards gives the impression he might have the technical proficiency proficiency to operate a flashlight, but would struggle with the TV remote. I don’t know. I think that you’re dealing with a lot of people who, uh, aren’t technically sophisticated in general.
We have socks over on YouTube says, Leslie, McAdoo Gordon says there’s no constitutional right to be doxed. And MF MSNBC did nothing wrong. LOL. There’s probably, there’s no constitutional right to not be doxed, right? So that they’re free to go docs, whoever they want. They’re MSNBC, they’re in charge. They run stuff around here. Aiden Hoffman says, do you think it was deliberate visual tactic for the prosecutions weapons handlers to wear the same gloves as Kyle did each time they touch the AR Ooh, Ooh. They were wearing those gloves. Weren’t they? What might that imply if they were doing that? Would it show that maybe Kyle Rittenhouse was doing something that was lawful legitimate police technique?
I got the feeling that a lot of the police in this case were on team Kyle. Perfect. I mean, honestly, pet Moretti was, it was a war zone out there. We all needed guns. Yeah, no, it was crazy for three days. It’s a great question. Aiden not applicable says, wonder if buy-on is a CCP collaborator fits the bill? Oh, maybe you should ask Eric Swalwell. He might know William Vasquez says, I think the judge and the jury are being naive. No matter what they say or do or what the verdict they agree on. People will hate them fairly or unfairly. Yeah. It’s damned if you do damned, if you don’t, as they say, Andrew Johan says, we should have met up. We should have a meetup for those that live in Arizona and have coffee or breakfast. That’s not a bad idea. It’s not a bad idea.
You know, might be something that, let me give that some thought might be something. I don’t know how many people are in Arizona, but it might be something that might be fun. We have a new one from, uh, Mandy, Kara Vicea says, ricotta sub here. Now subbed to you. Robert virtual hug. Love it. Glad you’re here. Mandy. Love, ricotta. Love what they’re doing over there. I mean, it’s mind blowing what’s happening. So shout out glad you’re here. Love those guys over there. And all the and gals and all of the attorneys not applicable says all fighting, I think for the right side of this cause, which is cool. You know, oftentimes in cases you get attorneys that will sort of split at least on YouTube. Most people are sort of rowing the same direction. Pretty neat. Not applicable says those look like fake white supremacists hired men could be Mandy with another one.
Mandy, Kara VCs says, Kyle supporters might be busy working full-time jobs and saving up for the holidays. Robert. That’s why they’re not there. It’s right. But, but even if so, even, so where are the non Kyle supporters? Right? Th there’s from what we saw, there’s just not, not, you know, hoards of anti written houses, zombies running around. Maybe they’ll show up. We’ll see what happens after the verdict. But I just get the sense that most of the country just sort of a, seen the evidence and feels that way. Uh, Eddie Oliver says I was going to go protest at Kenosha courthouse, but got a day job. Yeah. And a life that’s good. Good for you, Eddie. Congratulations. Eddie says, Hey Rob, if I go protest and get arrested, would you represent me? What if I punch each juror one time in the face for not coming up with a verdict Eddie that is illegal to punch people, even jurors in the face, even in the written house trial, it’s illegal.
I cannot advise you to do that. Don’t break the law. We have Billy 1, 2, 3 says, sorry. If you’re already addressed it just joined. But do you get the feeling that deliberation is being held up by a single Karen figure who asked to take the jury instructions home to validate the view? I, yes. I kind of said that I, I didn’t call her a care and I think I might have at some point, but I was calling her a jury instruction, Nazi somebody who’s going to go back home and write everything out. And, uh, uh, excuse me, uh, on page 37, uh, six, cause there’s only 36 pages. It says in paragraph four X, Y, and Z, and therefore he’s guilty. Okay. And you know, everybody goes well I’m and those were the rules, I guess we have to take provocation and self-defense and mash those all up together.
And so you get the one hall monitor Nazi, Karen out there who, who sort of commandeers the entire panel, blahzay Earl. He says our closing arguments normally. So petulant, both sides seem less than professional. Yeah, there was, it was pretty petulant. A good word. Richard said BS several times. I didn’t think lawyers would speak that way in court. It like it’s, it was perfectly on par with the rest of the trial. Very loose, very sort of felt like organic, you know, just kind of had some bullet points that he wanted to hit and just kind of tried to check them off and you know, meander through the argument. But yeah, not typical. I would say we have another one from Chris. Kelly says, Rob, can you shout out to my wife, Claire Kelly, shout out to Claire Kelly. She says that you’re dishy. Well, I don’t know about that.
If you read this out and say hi to her, she’ll totally blush. Well, I’m going to blush to Claire Kelly womb dishy. That’s that’s a, that’s a very nice compliment. I appreciate that. But shout out to Claire Kelly, shout out to husband, Chris Kelly. I appreciate you both being here and watching the show. We have Wolfgang Dayo says smash that like button share and subscribe. Thank you for reminding me about that Wolfgang. Yes, please do all of those things. Sharia LeBoeuf is here, says imagine believing the media establishment, that docks and destroyed a paramedic for donating $10 to Kyle’s defense funds. When they say they aren’t trying to docs jurors. I forgot about that one. That’s right. They did. They skewered that guy for donating to free Kyle. Oh, what a joke that was Scott [inaudible] says, sorry if I missed this, you’re covering this. But wondering if fingers pointing that rifle could be assault with a deadly weapon.
If so, are there special rules for prosecutors? So we did a segment on that earlier in this week there Scott, and I would check that out on the clips channel, but yeah, we did a whole segment on that. We actually looked at the statutes and uh, there’s good argument for that. The point being that if binger were prosecuting binger, he probably prosecuted him woods. Oh eight says, well, what do you think of the news organizations like MSNBC, CNN, other media outlets. They only showed the state’s closing arguments. Didn’t want to show the defense closing arguments. That’s what’s wrong with the world today. They only get one side of the story instead of the whole story that’s from woods oh eight. We have former Elio says, Rob, can you let me know how many Antifa fit a fist there are so I can bring enough male markers, enough markers for drawing male sex, organs, crime.
Jackie JECA says at Rokita LA livestream. There were worried about the defense’s face. When the jury requested to take the instructions home. What do you would you think that could really affect the jury? Also? What do you think about the judge approving it finally, after hearing the livestream today through ricotta law, I realize how much they think the defense has amped up. Do you feel the same way if Kyle gets another trial, can he change them? Uh, yeah. I think the defense, you know, really complicated the case that didn’t need to be complicated. I don’t think Kyle right now should have testified. I think that opened the door to all sorts of new issues. The prosecution successfully keyed in on them, talked about provocation based on a lot of the statements that came out of Kyle’s mouth. And then they started to change the whole narrative and it started to go downhill from there.
Didn’t it. And here we are. So I don’t think that that was a good move, but you know, that’s where we’re at. They have been certainly loose. A lot of these things I think should have been settled before court ever started with motions, eliminate about what the jurors can see and here not allowing words like militia to ever be played in a courtroom. That’s kind of just basic stuff. So, you know, if he, if he does get another trial, yes, he can change them. And I would, you know, at this point recommend that he does, it feels like they have snatched victory snatched defeat from the claws of victory. We’ve got bill given says, right? I think they were chanting. This racist apartheid had got to go. Maybe that’s what it was apartheid. Uh, former Leo says, I don’t see 36 inch Bhutan’s news now says an acquittal on Friday afternoon.
Kenosha will burn over the weekend. I wonder if the jurors will ask Kyle to come and help save his town. I think not to be had a hilarious meme about that. They actually wrote out a judge asked Kyle Rittenhouse to go protect the courthouse. And it’s Kyle Rittenhouse in front of the courthouse with a gun we have in the dark, says BG on the scene was on Alison Morrows channel. He’s in Kenosha said it wasn’t bad at all that there was at max, at least three dozen people there. Some for Kyle, some brain dead, AKA, not for Kyle. He also indicated that the Popo never asked him for the footage they used at his and seemed to suggest they got it from the internet, which is, yeah. I believe that the police testified. They got it personally from him after arresting him for possession that night.
Do you remember any of that? I don’t remember the specifics on the BG on the scene footage. I remember it was used in trial and I believe it is an exhibit, but I don’t recall if they got it from him specifically, because we did hear from detective Martin Howard, that he was just basically on the internet, downloading videos all over Twitter, kind of the same thing I was doing back then. So, you know, if the defense just stipulated to all those documents and all those videos and just said, well, we don’t really care where it came from. We’re not going to challenge it. Maybe he didn’t bother to go get the original former Elio says facts. We don’t need no stinking facts. We have a news. Now almost every decision by the judge has gone against the defense and it’s harm to fair trial. I don’t understand why so many people are so upset. The judge that thinks that Kyle is guilty.
That’s from news now. And I’m jumping back over to, uh, to YouTube. We had Sharia LeBoeuf we have not applicable says how far towards outright Leninist communism has our society slit. If Joe Rogan and bill Maher are right-wing somebody throw on the brakes already. Oh, I know it’s kind of crazy. You know, Joe Rogan a couple of years ago was a sort of a, an apolitical person. He lived in California. Now he’s in Texas in Austin, hanging out with Alex Jones and Tim pool talking about left wing cultists, which is, which is, you know, perfect. They’re all accurate, more accurate than, you know, Brian Stelter is we’ve got Lauren pieces. Anyone else remember during director cross binger said, do you need a tissue, Karen responding to a sneeze? Could that be for a juror? Karen? I don’t remember that, but that’s hilarious. Or maybe they can just, they can just identify her.
Everybody goes it’s her don’t even know her name, but it’s her dapper. Dave says, if the defense insisted that the drone footage be removed as evidence, even though first photo was seen by the jury, couldn’t the jury say that it was not properly admitted into evidence. Couldn’t the judge say it was not properly and be ignored. So yes, but the problem is is you sort of, you co-mingle that information with all of the other information, even though the judge can sort of bifurcate that out and separate that, how do you unco mingle all of that from the jurors minds?
Very difficult to do that. Just had a loud noise in the office. Don’t know what that was. If you saw me poking around and heard a loud noise and it’s gone now. Okay. So, uh, what else do we have? We have another one from Wolf gay says I watch a two hour show and one hour playing at two X speed. Well, that’s good to know Wolfgang. Yeah. Speed it up. Fly through this stuff. Not applicable says Kraus would love spam. It’s compressed pork Tager. What’s if he says, I am worried, they are scrutinizing everything in order to find something for conviction because they fear the mob. How possible do you think that is? It could be possible. Right? I mean, it really could. They could be going through and trying to identify any of those lesser included and just trying to see, uh, you know, what, like, they kind of want something to stick or some of them do.
And they’re trying to find where they can thread the needle. If it was all of them thinking self-defense or all of them thinking murder, they wouldn’t be going through all of the minutia and asking to take the instructions home. Chris Cunningham says, uh, the video wasn’t compressed, the resolution was changed. Yeah. And I think that Mike Polito, mark Polito actually showed us that, right. They just crop that top segment of the video out TW super stead it, a super chat. It says F Zach, Stacy, I don’t know whose act Stacy is, but I’m losing hope for Kyle says J rod. I hope the good guys win. I think a lot of people feel what you’re putting down there at J rod. We have take me, transportation says, what are the repercussions on the binger in the three different outcomes, acquit, Han guilty or does matter?
What are the repercussions on binger? I mean, look, if it’s an acquittal, he lost the case. So he’s going to now be, you know, a prosecutor who lost a national case. And so he would have to, you know, deal with that in his office. Won’t be any real consequential outcomes for him. He’s a government employee. He gets paid by the government. So he’s probably not going to get fired. He’s probably just going to go back to work on Monday, like a normal date, candidly, uh, if it’s hung, you know, same thing, he’s probably going to want to retry it again. So have a bunch of meetings about what do we do with this? Should we retry it or not? And then of course they probably will. And if it’s guilty, he’ll probably suddenly want to comment about the case. Again, he said that he wasn’t going to, but if it’s a guilty, he’ll probably say we knew this all along.
We’re very, you know, very, uh, happy that the justice was done in court that day, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and maybe even get a promotion and a job on CNN. Someday. Mitchell Kirkwood says statements by the prosecutors and the defendant are not evidence, but vids, annotated are by them unless you can ID them. It’s a good point, Mitchell. Yeah, they are modified. So they are kind of testimonial, right? They’re saying something, they are communicating an idea. It’s not just a raw video. It has been modified. And so what the judge would likely do is submit both sides, submit the prosecution’s version, submit the defense version and allow the jurors to just view them. Both at will decide which one they want to give more credibility to. And it was essentially the same video just with different annotations. One had the arrows, one had the little circles that were being bandied around.
We have blahzay or Yardi says, if this was tried in Florida, it’d be done by now. Maybe true. Yeah. I don’t know in Arizona, I’m not sure how it would go. You know, we have sort of a changing demographic here. Lama, Brad says, consider an activist juror with P two, two in their notes. We’ll see if the judge addresses that at all tomorrow. I’m not sure that he will hectoring Tulia. They Alameda Al mogra says why people are focusing so much on the judge when state grimace and captain crook are the clowns who begun the whole circus by indicting Kyle, why? It’s a good question. You know, the judge gets a lot of attention because he’s sorta, supposed to be the person in charge. He is the person in charge and people want to see sometimes, you know, the judge kind of get involved a little bit more. And so they take a lot of pressure from both sides. Everybody’s unhappy with the judge defense, his prosecution is it’s kind of a no win position. Uh, and, uh, we’re seeing that on display. Joe Calagano says if the jury acquits on some charges, but hang on, the rest would have a mistrial void, the whole case, or just hung the charges.
What a mistrial void, the whole case, uh, just the hung charges. So I see what so, so they could, uh, I mean, it kind of depends on the yeah I think they could break. They could recharge them on the hung charges if want it to George McNair says 32 degrees with the 26 mile per hour, wind and Kenosha tonight. Ooh, that’s Chile 32 degrees, 26 mile per hour, winds and Kenosha. That’s cold. That’s that’s chili C rose over on local says, Rob, do you think the defense has grounds for appeal to admit the FBI drone allow the jury to see it during trial, then further allow them to replay it during deliberations, despite trader knowing a prosecutorial misconduct that implicates altered photographs or video. If so, why do you think the appeals court would do speculation? Of course. So for appeal to admit the drone footage, allowing the jury to see it during trial.
So I guess my question would be why would the, why would the defense want it to be played? So why would they appeal to admit it? It already has been admitted. So if you’re asking, if you’re asking about an appeal to preclude the evidence, what you really be talking about would be sort of a special action. So it’s sort of put everything on hold and say, we need this. We need the court of appeals to come down and give us a ruling on this, about what to do with this video. But the problem here is the jury has already seen it. So a remedy there, what almost have to the jury has already seen it. And the defense didn’t get to prepare a counter to it because they saw a different version of this. So the remedy is not that you just say, just forget about that drone footage, because you’re missing a huge trunk of the trial.
You’re missing a whole defense that could have been concocted based on provocation, based upon this new drone footage. So, you know, the appeals court could, could theoretically make a ruling kind of insert itself in here and make a special action ruling. But it’s not easy to do all of this stuff has been co-mingled together, which has been a criticism that I’ve had about this court. Since the beginning king Kate says, when I think of the nightmares and the dreams I face and embrace pondering, mindless crowds leaves my hair in chase, also arrest every effing. One of those contacted the judge based on the context of the last year. One cannot be too safe. This judge and jury should be protected and separated from the vile we have speech unleash says, has the prosecutor received any threats so far? Just curious because it seems that all the people getting threats are those believed to be supporting Rittenhouse, not the ones trying to put Rittenhouse away for life.
How can that be? I thought that all the people who support people like Rittenhouse those in favor of self-defense are supposed to be the ones that are violent. But judge Schrader and drew Hernandez seemed to be the ones that are getting blown up all over the place. Very curious, good point. Their speech what’s oh eight says, well, Robert, all those emails, the judge received are basically terror threats, depending on the email, they could be tried for felonies. It depends. Look in many instances, if you’re on here, here’s the problem with all this stuff. If you make the threats towards a political protected class, then oftentimes, or against sort of the establishment to some degree, oftentimes you can be penalized for that. But if you, if you condemn somebody that the establishment has decided is no longer in favor, then nobody cares about that. You’re free to beat those people up.
Judge Schrader is not part of the mainstream person. He said Asian food. So he’s a racist. And he also is somebody who said, you can’t call somebody a victim when it hasn’t been proven in a court of law. And that’s illegal now in this country, apparently. So he can be scolded and criticized and harassed on a regular basis. That’s okay because he’s no longer in the in-group good question. Another one from Yoda says Joe Rogan is right. It is a cult. We have John Halligan says being just over an hour from the war zone, known as Kenosha, preparations are being made to ensure no early black Friday shopping breaks out. Nothing happened before by us. Nothing will happen. Now I can only hope everyone has that time to upgrade their cameras and practice their filming. I’m tired of the fuzzy poorly framed drone films. The next trial needs to be more cinematic.
It’s from John Calgrin. I’d like that too. Yeah. Special like Supercuts HD, ultra 4k. Sergeant Bob is here. It’s been a long time. Sergeant says, I think all the threatening will solidify the good people who will just not take it any more. Good to see you. Sergeant Bob. I know miss lucky said you were traveling. It’s good to see you back. John Halligan says the sixes and the OFS were exactly the same, same Karen that’s from John Haugen, giving us some handwriting analysis. Thanks. John Briggs says Schroeder has been a pushover based on his wishy washiness, addressing rulings, including the admission of evidence in various motions. I don’t see them granting any dismissals with or without prejudice. I agree with you. I think he’s just kicking the can to the jury. He’s afraid of the backlash of a dismissal will cause him his best outcome would be a conviction kicking the can to the appeals court.
If they hang he’ll call a mistrial and make sure someone else presides over bingers next try. Pretty good summation there. Briggs. I also think that maybe he’s hoping for an acquittal. You know, if they come out, then he really has nothing to do. That would be a big, the biggest win for him. News now says, I really do not understand the duty to retreat instruction. It says you have no duty to retreat, which means you don’t have to do it, but you can find them guilty. If you find that he could have not. If he could have retreated. Yeah. It’s a weird instruction. That’s why the judge said everybody’s confused about it. No duty to retreat, but you can consider the failure to retreat in your verdict. What that’s why everybody’s confused news. Now you’re not alone. We got rational. Gay says if Schroeder declares a Mistry with prejudice, do you think the DOJ will try to file federal charges at circumvent, double jeopardy?
Uh, I don’t know what they would base that on. You know, what, what would they charge him with? You know, in the Shovan case, it’s a federal civil rights violation. He’s a government employee. Who’s, you know, murdering somebody, uh, allegedly on the basis of race and all of that. So they had that ready to go in this case, you know, is it a weapons trafficking violation? Is it something like that? Because otherwise it’s just kind of a, a murder case. You know, there’s really what civil rights are being implicated here. I don’t know. Uh, that’s from rational gaze. Another one from grouchy old cat lady says maybe all that background detail is needed to determine reasonableness in Kyle’s actions. He’s 17, not 65. Kyle’s reasonable to believe might not be the next person’s reason to believe that’s from grouchy, old cat lady, a good comment.
And a lot of people interpret these things differently. Former Elio says if they found a self-defense on top of the top charge that should self satisfy the top count and they need not go to the lesser included. That’s the way it used to work in California. I agree. Which is why I was saying, if you’re a self-defense believer, it solves everything. You don’t need to even read the instructions anymore because the self-defense instruction, excuses and privileges all of the other conduct. But the jurors of course, you know, are diving into it. Brit Cormier says fact pattern in this case is so bad for the state. Not even legal Eagle could spin it to not self-defense that should tell you something. Yeah. If he’s not even going to get out there and dunk on this one, man, it must show you that this is a pretty good case.
See of love says, why does the offensive, the defense appears so weak. They should be pounding on the desk, demanding a mistrial with prejudice, for violating his constitutional rights. They are just kind of, you know, going along with the motions, it seems pesky citizen says if the jurors were allowed to take the instructions home, but not their notes, are they allowed to bring notes from home into the deliberation room? So we don’t know because the judge said that they can take their notes that are written on the instructions home. So what happens if they write notes on the instructions and bring those back? Can those come in? Probably according to this judge, we have Shirley Hasting says I would love to see his trial dismissed with prejudice, but in this case he would be accused his whole life for the deaths of these two justice for Kyle Rittenhouse.
Yeah. Yeah. Right. A mistrial would mean that he’s not completely exonerated. And I think that’s part of the reason he testified is because he wanted to clear his name and who can blame him. He’s been maligned for the last 18 months. HGTP OMOP palapas oh, OMOP platapus says, what are the chances that Kyle’s found guilty in sentences? Time served, uh, zero. I would say, uh, you know, it’s going to have a mandatory minimum of a lot longer than that, when that still ruins Kyle life, uh Kyle’s life yet. So he’s going to have a statutory minimum. And he was only in custody, I think for two or three months, if I remember correctly. So that’s not enough time. It wouldn’t satisfy the statutory threshold. Steve Erwin says, have you ever had an experience with a fair prosecutor you have respect for, but based on how they handle cases or are they all the same and like binger now they are not all the same in like being her.
A lot of them are right. A lot of them are, and I’m not, I’m not trying to backtrack on that statement. I said a lot of them are, but yeah, there are a lot of good prosecutors out there. I’ve had I’m friends with some of them. Uh, you know, some of, some of us have had contested battles, but you sort of part ways as, as colleagues and it’s reasonable people, you know, who are trying to do the right thing. There are also prosecutors who were just true believers in the cause. They want to see convictions. They wake up every day thinking they’re saving society from the next, you know, whatever disorderly conduct person out in Scottsdale. Ooh, Ooh, good job. You know, way to save America. And they asked for, you know, a lot of unreasonable things and I have a lot of problems with those prosecutors, but there are a lot of good ones.
Seth stark says that loud noise was MSNBC following you. Oh, it’s true. Maybe it was Egypt princess with a donation. Thank you. With gypsum princess. We have Wolfgang Dayo says, can the judge hold MSNBC in contempt of court? Yeah, sure, absolutely could. So I issued an order here. You violated it. You’re now in contempt. Take me transportation with the donation. Thanks. Take me transportation. No date says, regardless of the verdict, do you think that there will be more or less armed citizens showing up to protect property after the ruling? My gut says that more will. I think that you’re right with that. I think people have been buying firearms, uh, hand over fist off the shelves. Last time I was in there, man, there was not much left. Ammos flying off the shelves. I think people are recognizing that these so-called competent government, that many of us thought we had doesn’t really exist.
And in places like Kenosha, police just kind of stand down. You’re on your own. What are you supposed to do in those situations? Protect yourself. That’s why this case is so important. For many people it’s establishing a new baseline for the national Zeit Geist for the foreseeable future 63 rambler says, how are so many other things being called domestic terrorism, but not jury intimidation? Well it’s because the people who are doing the defining of the terms have political positions that they want to nurture. So if you’re a white supremacy, if you question COVID restrictions while you might be a domestic terrorist, but if you are challenging, judge Schrader, well, you’re just somebody who’s fighting for racial equality and justice. See how that works. It’s very convenient from the south side says if you think Kyle is not guilty due to self-defense, I agree. And you have to agree that Arbery had a right to defend himself and the MC Michaels are guilty.
I do agree with that. Yeah. That was my take on that case. And I know that’s not a popular opinion, but yeah, I think that the big Michael’s actually sort of provoked the situation and they don’t get to use self-defense after you provoke. And that’s what happened. 63 rambler, uh, got that one. Curtis Bartel says, I think the judge holds the cards free. Kyle LGB. Good to see you, Curtis. Jamie Blanco says, I appreciate all you do. You’ve had my attention since the Shovan trial. Well, thank you, Jamie. I appreciate you being here for it. Having a lot of fun, doing a lot of, uh, you know, a lot of learning here with you. And so I hope you’re getting the same value that I am. We have Rinzler says, I think people are overreacting. I think the jury wants to equip, but it’s trying to figure out the confusing provocation issue without that there is no case for the prosecution.
I agree with you. Yeah. I think that they need that to pop the bubble Wolfgang Dayo says, Hey, Hey, ho ho, this model part height has got to go. Angel Zack says, can they check ADA Kraus sent items on his phone for size of the video attachment sent would be interesting to see if he would insist on a warrant. So the judge could, and yesterday he said that he was going to take these questions all under oath. And so we’ll see if the judge, um, the judge does that. We’ve got not applicable, says you’re discussed with the prosecution is why I subbed. Well, I’ve got a lot of it. So you’re going to see a lot more of that over the years. No doubt, Dave, with a donation. Thanks Dave. K super chat. It says, how has total legal and civil immunity for prosecutors, not a form of government tyranny. It’s a great question. They have all sorts of special rules for themselves and you can look into statutes and see it. If it’s like, it’s like, if you insult a defense attorney, you should cause that’s a good joke. And you know, they’re just scum. If you insult a prosecutor life in prison, probably the death penalty as well. Just look at your statutes in your state and you’ll see how that all works. Uh, another one, uh, came in, I’m seeing a couple more come in.
Uh, dapper. Dave says, I asked this question on our Qaeda stream in the future. Can you guys adequately stream and analyze a federal case even though they’re not shown on TV? So not to the same degree at all. I mean, truthfully, I’m going to be paying close attention to the Glen Maxwell case. I have two videos that I recorded this morning about that that are coming out tomorrow. They’re doing jury selection in her case this week and next, and then trial starts on November 29th. I’ve been very interested in this case because the lawyering in this case is outstanding. And I mean, outstanding. It’s really, really good. And I’m learning a lot from it. Unfortunately it’s not televised and you can’t audio record anything. And so even the judge today I posted on Twitter says that even the sketch artists are not supposed to draw the witnesses in a way that mirrors their likeness.
So you don’t even know who these people are. So how are you supposed to do a trial when you can’t see anything? You can’t hear anything and you don’t even know who the victims are. The witnesses are, cause they’re all being hidden very difficult. And so we’re going to try to cover those. Probably won’t be alive, you know, live shows, but I’ll probably be recording videos based on what people who are in the courtrooms are seeing. And the judge has authorized, authorized feeds for the media that are played in a separate building there so that people from, you know, journalists can go and sit in this room and watch it. But that stream will not be rebroadcast. So kind of an important trial, Glen Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, some of the most powerful people in the world, and we’re not going to get to pay much attention to it.
Don’t you just love that. But Kyle Rittenhouse, we get to see every little detail, every single stinking, bit of minutia we get to talk about and kill each other over same thing with the model. Arbery same thing with Derek. Shovan all of these really red meat trials. We get a lot of activity on, but Golin Maxwell that might implicate, you know, people like bill gates all under seal don’t even know anything about it at all. Don’t you love that? We have, uh, some more questions over here. J see, John says, during closing binger said that Kyle murdered Rosenbalm can he say that? Yeah, he can its argument. Yeah. He can say that he’s arguing that it was in fact murder during a direct examination of somebody who would not be able to do that. But yeah, during closing, no problem with that, uh, Mandy, Kara Vichy us as Rob, one of your mods hates broccoli.
I think your pool is compromised. Well, just let me know who that is and they’re gone. They’re out of here, obviously. It’s one of the better of the vegetables. Green vegetables are all quite delicious. All of them, uh, peas, green beans, broccoli love the lettuce. I mean anything that’s basically asparagus brussel sprouts. They’re all good. So you just let me know who that is, Mandy and we’ll deal with that on the backend. Uh, take me transportation says, does repercussions change for prosecutors depending on the outcome Ms. Trial without prejudice or other outcomes? Um, not really. I mean, not unless it’s something that happens internally in their office, you know, they can get fired for being a terrible lying piece of garbage prosecutor that could happen. Uh, C banger, uh, see John already got that one. Dapper. Dave says, oh, I already got that one too. So I think we got caught up on the super chats over from YouTube.
Thank you everybody. For all of the support over there. We’ll go back over to locals. Let’s see what we’ve got. Oh, it’s Jake from Oxford is here, says, uh, how dare you? And you’re racist. Oh, it’s Jake. You know, sometimes Jake is very nice and he’s diplomatic like a gentlemen from Oxford other days. He’s like that condescending, you know, I’m from Oxford type. Here he is. He’s back to his old self. Uh, how dare you and your racist cult following speak against this amazing prosecution. Krauss was wrong. He did not give binger any thumb drive on Saturday. Binger was with me and we went to Buddha judges, residents, and we all took turns breastfeeding the new baby. It was a beautiful afternoon and binger showed how well he will get along with everyone in DC. Any of your privileged followers that like, and share your videos definitely will be monitored by my state department, stake Sullivan from the state department back to his old Oxford self.
Again. So be careful everybody, Jake from Oxford is going to be monitoring us all here. Hand of nod says that we’re heading into day four of declinations is condemnation of the defense’s case. Also a shame. The resources Robert Barnes was prepared to levy against the DA’s that were not realized. Jury selection appears to be super critical. The laundry list of offenses and malicious practices by the da team is impressive where you present, where you would, you not stand up and push the judge towards a mistrial, particularly with prejudice. All you need to do is repeat the judge’s own comments with a little more cohesion. The DA’s already demonstrated the effectiveness of repetition in retrospect, but 4k, our testimony, the lesser included charges would not be a factor that you seem to really muddle the jury’s role. It’s possible. This opened the door to conviction when otherwise Rittenhouse would have been acquitted.
When the weapon charge was fully dismissed, waiting sucks, stay vigilant. That is from hand of nod. It’s a good comment. Their hand have not. I appreciate that when I agree with you a lot, I think that you conflate a lot of the issues when you start to just layer things on top of one, another speech unleash says, my guess is that the jury wants to take the instructions home so they can show them to their friends and family to see what they think they should do or how they would interpret it. Judge told them not to do that. Christiana says, can a Juris be excused if they get verbally abusive or start cursing, or if they bully others and deliberations. Yeah, totally. Yeah. I mean, if it, if it comes to the point where they are sort of engaging in misconduct. Yeah. They, they gotta go.
And uh, those can be tricky conversations. De Del SPI says, I don’t think that was his signature on the sheet was just the, for the courtroom. But yeah, he probably should be a doctor by handwriting. Am I right? There was a lot of different, uh, poorly written things there probably. Right. Okay. Let’s see. What else is on local speech says I’m waiting to see some media source to interview a handwriting analyst to review the jurors written questions, and then speculate on that juror’s attitude and personality. As related to the questions they wrote down, they are using everything else to try to figure out what the jury is thinking. Yeah. Did you see that there was a little bit of a curve on that L L L with a curve L with a curve. Oh, what does that mean?
Losers. That’s what that means. That means that they’re all losers. Oh, what does that mean? That means a binger. Okay. So who knows? You know what I like it. I, I like where you’re going. Speech monster. One says all the questions are from yesterday. Today’s the 18th. According to Barnes, he thinks the woman who asked to take instructions home is the Forman. Apparently she’s holding the rest of the juries hostage because she’s a real Karen. It could be, I don’t know, could be a bowed. Low-rise me says, sorry. No puns, but just wondering, and I’m sure you’ve been asked before, but wondering if this is a mistrial without prejudice, what would it take to get you and all the other lawyers on advocated to come in and take over to kick the butts of fluffer boring sauerkrauts then go for the civil and defamation suits.
Please, please, please. You folks could help him so much. Thanks, Rob. Keep up the good work. Wouldn’t take much for me. I’d be happy to help. You know, I’ve, I’ve always been open to that. And, um, nobody’s asked and we’ve got grouchy. Old cat lady says I have tried to play advocate favoring the prosecutor side, nothing. I could tell myself points to Kyle being nothing more than a 17 year old making the most reasonable decisions he could under the circumstances think like Spock Kyle innocent of all charges remains. That was from grouchy old cat lady. And we’ve got south and says, uh, south street academy says, were there any photos of Kyle’s injuries? Were they shown as evidence? Thanks for all of what you do. So there were several people that discussed them. In fact, the government’s, uh, own witness discussed them. Martin Howard specifically talked about them and there was a big laundry list.
We played that clip here on the show. Now were there photos? I don’t know. And were those admitted as evidence? I don’t know, but the defense probably should have done that. John Dolores says, what if a jury member slips the judge? No. And says that they’re afraid to find Kyle not guilty because of the mob. Could that cause a mistrial? Uh, it could. And if the judge, you know, said that the entire panel was tainted as a result of that. Yeah. I mean, he might be able to do that. Now he would try to correct that. You know, he’s not going to say, okay, well you’re scared you get to go home now. Sorry about that. Hopefully you’re not scared anymore. He’d say, well, that’s your prerogative. Sorry. Uh, this is a jury. Yeah. You have to do your due diligence. I know it’s a huge burden.
I know you’re scared. That’s just too bad. This is America. You’ve been called upon to do your civic duty. So go do it. And I think that’s how the judge would, uh, leave that. Uh, Kenny one B says, I think there’s another activist on the jury preventing an acquittal kind of like was Shovan do you agree? You know, I don’t know. I mean, it’s hard to say there’s also a lot of good reasons why they could still be deliberating, including the fact that there’s 36 pages of jury instructions news now says yesterday, the only video that was shown to the jury was the drone footage on the 4k TV. The prosecutor argued strongly against them watching that video on a tiny screen. To me that is placing emphasis on one piece of evidence. What goes through the mind of the jury when you play special emphasis on a single piece of evidence, especially one piece that is so contested.
Well, the jurors look at it, right? They’re going to put a lot of weight and credibility on that one particular piece of evidence, which is why the defense didn’t want that mechanism to happen. They wanted to say no tiny laptop. Watch it one time because the jurors are going to do exactly what the judges is, allowing them to do, dissect this a million different ways from Sunday and give them till the end of the time to do it. Greg Murat says, Rob, I know this is a swing in the dark, but in your opinion, do you think this is a split jury or just one futures holding out? Just wondering because of the rumors about overheard conversations between the defense attorney. So, you know, I really don’t know. I mean, if I, if I gave you an opinion, it would be pure speculation. I would say if I had to guess it’s probably a few people, I don’t think it’s a 50 50 split.
I’d say it’s probably a few people that are just sort of wanting to know more. I think that’s typically the case. You know, people start to have a bunch of, you have a bunch of people that start in the middle and they just slowly start to sort themselves out. Those were good questions. Let’s see, I clicked the wrong screen here. That’s from Greg Marotta. Brig says if it comes out that NBC producer told the freelance journalist to get pics of the jury, could that person be charged with a crime to conspire, to commit jury tampering? Yeah. I mean, they’re investigating that. The judge said that the police department said that they’re looking into it. Monster one says, I really don’t buy. Sauerkrauts not knowing technology. He’s got editing software on his computer. He knows how to use it. He’s feigned. Ignorance is laughable. Please don’t buy into this.
It’s pure malfeasance on the part of the prosecution. They know they got caught, act like a child who got caught sneaking candy. After bedtime. I have zero faith in this judge. He’s actually going to do anything about it. He’s too worried about what gets written about him in the media. I don’t believe him either. Right? I think he knows what he’s doing. John Dolores says, if the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice, can someone overrule his decision? Uh, yeah. I mean, technically I think that the appeals court could, will they, I don’t know, eat on test, says I’m in for a Phoenix meetup. Shout-out so we’ve got another eat on test. Are you local here? Kincaid says great catch a. Now bingers little finger makes a lot more sense. We have news now says here’s one clip of the black pastor comment. 57 seconds que this.
Let me save this one up. I’m going to play it right now, but we’ll queue this one up because I am going to be taking a closer look at Arbery, uh, in the coming days. All right. That’s for news now. Thank you news. Now we have VNT kiss says I’ll have notes of today’s testimonies with Michael’s trials up on locals. Again, haven’t gone through all of it today though yet. Oh, that’s amazing. Well, that might make, uh, my life easy. Thank you. VNT KIS. Sean O’Halloran says plus one for the meetup in Arizona. I’m from Vegas, but in Phoenix area, serving clients one to two times a month and I would gladly gladly schedule my appointments around a meetup. Well, that’s cool. That’s that’s actually, that’s kind of amazing. We have a huge conference room here at the office. We’re sort of right in old town, Scottsdale.
It’s a good place. We could probably do a home base thing here. Maybe go out to dinner or something. I don’t know. Well, leafy buck says yesterday, the judge said something about a day of reckoning or something very similar. It seems to be a pretty clear indication that he’ll declare a mistrial. If the jury doesn’t acquit or do you think he’s planning to sanction, binger and Krauss in some way? It depends. I think it depends on what happens. I mean, if it turns out that they lied, if they falsified and manipulated evidence, yeah. There’s going to be sanctioned and probably a referral for a bar complaint. On the other hand, the judge has had a lot of things and hasn’t really done much of, most of it. It’s a good point.
Ben Tomlinson says, do you think the defense should have objected to the drone video immediately because they failed to establish foundation? Yeah. I mean, yes. I think that, you know, a different strategy in this case would have been to object to all the videos, all of them and fight every single one of them because you want to keep them out because it’s overly duplicative. You know, you fight judge. No, w w we’ll allow one video in, I mean they can pick it and, and, and fight out every single shred of evidence so that the jury doesn’t get 37 exhibits that they get to play around with for three and a half days. But they didn’t take that strategy. Jake from Oxford says case in point tell Wolfgang they should expect a friendly visit from the FBI in the morning. Oh, Wolfgang. You’re on notice from Jake Sullivan.
Brian says, Brian hacks says, why did we say bill of rights as if the constitution gives us rights? These are restrictions on the government. No, I mean, the declaration of independence speaks of inalienable rights before eventually the constitution came about, instead of us complaining about constitutional rights being violated, perhaps we would get more engaged. If we complain about the government overstepping their constitutional restrictions points, the finger of tinnitus, shaming of the government, instead of they’re exasperated at everything. Thanks, Brian, John Haugen says, during your career, have you personally known an attorney or been ever partially involved in a case or proceeding that resulted in one of the attorneys being disbarred? I hear a lot of talk about censor and punishment, but I never hear of one actually being held accountable. Yeah. It happens a lot. I don’t think that I’ve ever worked with a prosecutor that has, uh, been disbarred.
So right behind me, I have a wall kind of, of shame of a number of different cases that I’ve covered. And I’m not seeing any prosecutors that were disbarred. Um, but here locally that I’ve worked with, uh, but attorneys do, did get disbarred all the time. Yeah. And it happens regularly. So, but prosecutors are sort of in a different caliber. I’m sure I could find an example, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head of Antica says, I believe Karen was the clerk that binger offered a tissue to. It could be that Kenny one V says, junket man identified as a career. Criminal prosecution knew his identity all along and lie to the court about it. Thoughts. So I have not seen that confirmed if that is confirmed. That is a humongous problem. That’s an, it’s a, it’s a Brady violation.
They didn’t disclose evidence. The ghost right behind Robert is here. Says that noise was me. Sorry, Rob. Well, I’m doing a show here. Will you stop it? We’re busy. We’ve got business to attend to, uh, Yoda says riot fires. We’ll warm up that 32 degrees. Yeah. Couple of burnt down used car lots. That’ll keep you warm. During the winter. See rose says, Rob, not an interlocutory appeal should have been more specific. Kyle was convicted. Wouldn’t it be grounds for appeal that showed her admitted. The, if he’s convicted saying that Schroeder admitted the FBI drone footage, then after being aware of the alteration, allowed the jury to view the footage. If so, what do you think the appeals court would do? Yes. That is more specific. Thank you for that. So, uh, yes. I think the appeals court would have a problem with that evidence being admitted, especially if we have a disclosure problem where the government didn’t give the defense, the proper evidence.
I think that’s a pretty big problem. And the appeals court, I think, would find that, uh, Brian hacks says lean in Zulu Zeit or the broccoli haters, by the way, I forgot what I wanted to say. Hey, Hey, ho ho, these mods have got to go. They’re not going anywhere. Brian, we need order and civility in this place, but they hate broccoli. All right. We’ll have to have a conversation about that, Brian. Uh, is there a list of objections? Like, are there federal rules of civil procedure? So yeah, so there are, there are, um, summations of objections that are, that are useful, but the objections are based on the violations of the rules. So you have to know the rules in order to object, to a violation of the rules. So the best way to learn your objections are to learn the rules, uh, would be the best way to do it.
Three girls says, if they get rid of qualified immunity for cops, they should be getting rid of qualified immunity for prosecutors. Just saying, I don’t disagree with you on that. You know, I think that, like I said this before defense attorneys, if you’re unhappy with our representation, if you think we’re pieces of garbage, you can go tell us about it. Leave a review. If a prosecutor is a malicious prosecutor, what do you do? You file a bar complaint that gets dismissed and they just show up to work the next day. No repercussions for them, no public accountability. Uh, and they’re highly protected. Tremendous says, I don’t remember if it was today or yesterday, but at some point the judge said that because of the things being said by the media, he would hesitate in the future to allow cameras in the courtroom. He said that earlier this week, I wish he would see how many eyes have been opened by cameras in the courtroom.
The transparency is shine, that big, beautiful spotlight and so many bad things. Prosecutors, media lies the success of her Qaeda stream and seeing the woman from young Turks switching her opinion has given me a lot of hope that eyes are being opened. I agree with you. Tremendous. I think it’s awesome that so many people are interested in this. Kenny one B says plus two for a Phoenix meetup. I like the area always looking for excuses to go for a weekend vacation. Okay. All right. That’s that’s, that’s a quorum. I think we have a Sergeant Bob says yes. On the meetup. If in your conference room, no donuts bagels with light cream cheese, please. When we get to CV there, cause they’re going, um, to Chino valley here in Arizona. All right. So we’ve got enough. B Arizona is the place to be folks. Uh, Priscilla is here, says, do you think that they will bring in an expert witness to see what happened with the video?
And if it shows that Krauss did lie or do something nefarious, would that trigger an automatic mistrial with prejudice? I would think so. I think that the judge at that moment would sanction them and say, you have done something unethical the penalty for doing something unethical. In order to secure a conviction is a dismissal with prejudice. You did something bad, you should feel bad. And now you’re going to be punished badly and dismiss the case. As a result. Those all came from watchingthewatchers.locals.com our lovely home base, where we have a lot of people, very interested in Arizona meetup. And we may go ahead and do that. And some others came in from super chats. Let’s see what we’ve got here before we close it out for the day.
Squirrel 69 says, uh, S squirrels 69 says, uh, binger misrepresented the law several times in closing regarding self-defense. Is that not considered a lie? And why was he allowed to misstate the law to a jury knowing full well what he was doing? Well, that’s a problem. That’s because the defense didn’t object to that, like when he said, what you’re talking about, squirreled, I think is the point where he said that if you bring a gun, you lose the right to self-defense, which is not the law at all. That’s not how that works at all. In fact, many people carry guns perfectly legally without ever losing the privilege to self-defense. So how could he get away with saying that? Well it’s because Cura, FEC and Mark Richards seemed like that they were just kind of playing loose with the rules, allowing them to do what they wanted to do and get away with saying what they wanted to say.
And so I think that you’re right to be a little bit irritated about that, especially now, you know, hindsight is always 2020. We can always look back now and start playing the game of maybe they should’ve done stuff differently. And so it’s always hard to second guess a lawyer because you know, we’re not there. We’re watching this through a camera, you know, many, many miles away. And we don’t know what happens on the sidebar conversations. We don’t know what happens, um, in the judges chambers, after, you know, before or after the trial, there’s a lot of reasons why lawyers do what they do that we never know about. That’s never a part of the public record. So it’s easy to be overly critical looking backwards. But a lot of this stuff, as I’ve been commenting in real time is just kind of basic fundamental stuff.
And even from the very beginning, you know, I wasn’t super keen on their strategy about not getting a lot of clarity about certain motions, eliminate and allowing all this stuff to sort of be, you know, addressed on the fly. That’s just not how I’ve been taught to practice law. A lot of this stuff needs to be organized and fleshed out before the trial ever starts. It’s a great question though. And, uh, I think what you’re identifying as being problematic is just the failure to object. We have Chris Cunningham also says when you compress a file, it will be the same size as original went on, compressing, changing the resolution, changes the Rez and the size of the file. So I think Chris, what you’re talking about, which is accurate, right, is if you put a video file into a zip file or a RAR file, it’s going to compress it. And then when you uncompress it, the original file that comes back out of the zip or the RAR will be the original file size here. What we’re, what we’re suspecting happened is the actual video file has been compressed shrunken down from an 11 megabyte file down into a smaller file that has the same resolution, just a smaller pixel density, right? Smaller resolution.
And I know you only have so many characters in, in your, in your message. So I know it’s frustrating that we’re talking about these things. I get it. We have take me, but thank you for that. Chris, take me, transportation says repercussions on the different outcomes based on the misconduct is borrowed, et cetera, per each outcome, would the wrath change based on each outcome? So not unless it was sort of a, the outcome was, was predicated upon the judge’s ruling. So in other words, if the jury comes back and says, it says, he’s acquitted, that’s really not consequential for binger. Other than the fact that his office is going to say, you’re a loser, why’d you lose that case dummy. And that would be the only consequence. Now, if the consequence, if the outcome of the case is because the judge dismisses the case, considering it to be a mistrial with prejudice. Well, if the prejudice is on the back of binger and Kraus being unethical liars about their disclosures, yeah. That’s going to have consequences for him because the outcome is now predicated upon the judge’s decision. And the judge’s decision at that point now becomes public record. We dismissed this case was with prejudice because binger and Kraus are, you know, no good. And that stuff might transfer over to the state bar. It might go over to da Mike gravely. And he may say, well, look, based on that, we have to now dismiss the case.
Uh, Wolfgang says, can we start a disbar party? Like the impeachment party? Yeah. Maybe let’s wait for the outcome first. And then maybe we’ll see where that goes. This is not taco says Maxwell case is interesting. I find it odd that they keep Terramar on YouTube, especially the UN con nobody calls them out. Only folks on the BL book that’s from, this is not taco. Yeah. We’re going to talk a lot more about Maxwell. Mitchell Kirkwood says if Kyle loses BLM, Antifa will think it’s a free ticket to attack without fear of retaliation. It’s scary. It is a scary thought. And that’s why you start to ask yourselves, are the jurors really going to allow that to happen? Are they going to set that standard? Are they going to incentivize that type of behavior? Self-defense disincentivized, public looting, burning, burning down individual cities is incentivized. You’re now free to do that.
Yeah, we have. Um, Wolfgang says, if you hate quips, you must acquit like getting Mandy. Cara visa says I was blackmailed by the guilty moderator. Ooh, we got squirrel 69 says the chance sounds to me like, Hey, Hey, ho ho, this racist court has got to go. It could be that. Or, or part, it could be that one. Also Susan S N Z S Z N says, what are the facts in which the prosecution basis, their provocation argument, really the crux of it was that one photograph that was super enhanced from the drone video that allegedly shows Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Joseph. Rosenbalm saying that that was the provocation by him pointing the gun. He was sort of scaring Rosenbalm and Rosenbalm responded. And then Kyle shot him. And if you do that, if it’s, if it’s provocation that you initiate you no longer get self-defense on the back end.
It’s a good question. And squirrel says, I’ve been interested in this case since it happened last year, but I’m super mad that it didn’t seem to be tried as an actual self-defense case. There is so much more at stake here that should have been hammered into the jury. I don’t think you’re alone on that squirrel girl. I think a lot of people will agree with you. I mean, they, there’s a lot of, a lot of questions being asked about this entire strategy. Why was a lot of, a lot of this evidence stipulated to why weren’t there more objections? Why was Rittenhouse testifying? Why, why, why? And we can play that game until the end of the world. And now we’ve got sort of a revision of the defense asks from a motion for a mistrial, with prejudice. Now one without prejudice, it kind of makes you feel like maybe they think that something is screwed up on their end.
And a lot of people are going to be very upset about this. If there’s not acquittals across the board, myself included super iron. Bob says compression can be lost, or lossless wave to MP3 is lossy wave to flack is lossless zip and RAR are lossless lossy. Algos are often about perception. And so it’s complicated, right? And this is why, uh, Mr. Krauss can get away with that excuse saying, well, I’m not a technical wizard. I don’t know any of this stuff. Well, it’s kind of your job to know this stuff. You have to make sure that evidence is preserved. You don’t just get to say, well, well, sorry. We kind of screwed up those, uh, those blood results. And we kind of messed up the vial of the blood. And so here you get a copy of a copy of a copy, but it’s good enough. No, not how that works. We want the original evidence. We want the actual blood, not your interpretation of the blood. We don’t want multiple Xerox is here and we’re not going to take your word for it. Thank you. So if you don’t know the technical wizardry, figure it out.
Wolfgang Dayo says love for the mods on behalf of puppy. So yeah, there’s lots of law. There’s lots of model love, obviously broccoli or no broccoli. I mean, I’m curious as to what the other vegetables might be. I mean, if you’re not a broccoli person, what are you a tomato person? Squash? Do you like squash? Do you like peppers? Green peppers? I mean, we got to have some vegetables in our lives. All right. It can’t all be potatoes and you know, carbohydrates. So if you cut out the green vegetables, what’s left, that’s a huge category. It’s very important. Beth Cottington says, uh, Hey, Robert, just praying for the safety of Kyle and his family and the judges and the jurors and the city is such a sad state of affairs. So that’s from Beth. Thank you for that, Beth. And for reminding us, you know, we can get really caught up in the minutia and the weeds, but yeah, man, these are families.
These are moms and sisters and families that are all hurting right now. And so nice reminder to send some love and some prayers out there way. Chris Cunningham says per the woman attorney, the low Rez file was completed 21 minutes after the high risk file, the day the prosecution received the file. Yeah. So somebody edited it, they cropped it or they reduced it or they compress it or they, uh, you know, interpolated it, I don’t know, but it’s a different piece of evidence and it’s not appropriate. And there should be some consequences for that. Uh, and that was from, uh, Chris Cunningham. And then squirrel says, last comment. As soon as they found out, there was two different videos. The court should have seized the prosecution’s laptop for an investigation. You know, he might be doing something like that and not, not, not seizing it, but saying, I want to see it.
Okay. And bring me that forward me. These copies, let’s take a look at what happened here, because crowds started to play that, uh, that game, you know? Well, let me try to receive this and see if it automatically, renames the file and all that crap. And the judge said, we’re not playing that garbage right now. We’re going to get an expert in here and I’m not going to listen to you. Hemann hall for another 25 minutes Kraus about whatever it is you think happened here. Not a technical wizard. Don’t make enough to answer these questions. It’s discovery, not my it. And even if I did know, it’s not my responsibility. Anyways, it’s Ms. [inaudible] responsibility and her stinking Android phone, and they don’t know how to end. They don’t know how to use airdrop anyways, judge.
But I know that when you use airdrop, it doesn’t do the things that I say that it might not do. Okay. So it’s a lot of hemming and hawing. The judges. It’s not going to take it nor should he. Thank you. Squirrel. We have Beth Cottington says thanks to all the mods, you’re doing a great job. And she’s absolutely right. Doing an outstanding job. Shout out to Henry Dickson over there. We’ve got just cows in the house. We’ve got the antichrist prime. I see him chatting away, Zulus lights in the house house, all keeping good working order. Outstanding job. Thank you to everybody. I really appreciate it. Thank you for it. It really makes my life a lot easier. So thank you. And, uh, that was from Beth and then S S N Z S C N says, how can prosecutors hang their hat on the provocation argument? When Rosenbalm was the one chasing Kyle isn’t Rosenbaum provoking. Yes, but they’re saying he only chased Kyle because Kyle started it. He was the first provoker. He pointed the gun at Rosenbalm, which caused Rosenbalm to chase him because everybody knows that if somebody is pointing a gun at you, the most reasonable thing to do is chase them.
Especially if they have, you know,
A rifle. Okay. We have other questions coming in. Take your what’s. If he says the more I see Kyle, the more I could cry. Yeah. Well, look, hopefully this has done soon and it’s done correctly the right way. The antique has says I’m the bad boy. I can’t stand broccoli. I do like some Spanish though. Yeah. Spanish, right? It’s finishes another green. Very good. Give it to us raw. Also I bought a blended today for smoothies. Yeah. The green stuff is good folks. I mean, look, asparagus. I could eat asparagus by the wheelbarrow full on a regular basis. We had some other, uh, super chats come in and say, Wolf gang says, Shamie plug. I ignore you on Twitter at Wolfgang Dayo. So check out Wolfgang at Wolfgang Dale on Twitter, uh, sky re SA uh, sky says if there’s a mistrial without prejudice and they try Kyle again, can they sequester the new jury?
Sure. Yeah. I mean, it would be a new game at that point. So the judge could make a whole new decision and say, yep, this is we’re going to do things differently. This time we’re going to sequester the jury. A judge could preclude cameras this time, if you wanted to. And he could redo the whole thing as though it’s a brand new trial. Uh, do you think that they would, or is it too late? I don’t think the judge is going to grant a motion for a mistrial with, or without prejudice, unless he absolutely has to. I mean, we’re not going to see it before we get a verdict. I think it’s with the jury, the judge is going to let them deal with it. If they come back with a conviction and it has, you know, anything to do with that drone footage and there’s problems that the judge finds with the drone footage based on this investigation, which I think he is going to, he might be hanging onto that as a card that he can use to say, I’m going to grant the mistrial as to these guilty convictions, but we’ll see, you know, he could come out tomorrow and have a different take on the whole thing.
I don’t know. News now says, where’d that go?
Where did that one go news? Now I saw it now I don’t see it. They re there it is. They really need to come to a verdict. Don’t they realize this whole thing is distracting at work. Tell me about it. I know on pins and needles over here, every time I hear a little bit of an audio from the judge, I’m like, is this it is this it? And so think about how it is if you’re actually a lawyer representing a client. Oh my gosh. It’s a lot. Skye says, if there’s a mistrial already read that one, follow your bliss says, if found guilty, I give up on this country, let them burn the cities, the media pushed a racial narrative that has destroyed us blood on their hands. I think a lot of people will agree with you on that. You know, a lot of people are going to find this to be a unforgivable unforgivable.
All right. Our last one, folks, I got to get moving. We’ve got a Brian bend. It says, sorry for the change of topic, but I saw Shovan document. He was denied a public defendant. Uh, can you comment on that? So yeah, they didn’t give him, I think, I, I think I talked about that previously, but he said something like, uh, he wanted to appeal his case. The police union said that we’re not going to pay for your appellate lawyer. So he had nobody to, uh, to represent them on the appeal. He asked the court to appoint a public appellate lawyer and the court, no, you’ve got too much money. You’ve got too much going on there. So we’re not going to do that for you. So it turns out that yells ultimately found, I think in the pellet attorney, somebody who’s going to help him front, uh, pay for that.
And so he does have an, a lawyer moving forward, but I don’t know much more. Other than that, Hector Tulio says, could it be possible that they already acquitted Kyle and informed the judge, but the judge is holding an announcing it to ensure the juror’s family safety. Probably not. I mean, I don’t think that the judge would do anything like that unless we saw a much more serious threat, but haven’t seen any evidence of any of that and that my friends is it for me, for the show today. Thank you so much for all the amazing questions we got to a lot of them. And, uh, that I skipped the last one.
I skipped your last one squirrel that I see that. Oh, I did. Sorry about that squirrel. I see that now. Okay. I lied. One more comment. It seems to me that with all of the tech being used these days, I think courts should employ a tech rep to ensure stuff isn’t getting slipped in. Like what Krauss said, ignorance of tech is no excuse. Yeah. That’s another good comment there. So, you know, a lot of this stuff typically gets fleshed out squirrel by, by both sides prior to this starting. I mean, honestly, you know, if you’ve been following us from the beginning, I said, this is kind of weird. Even in the pretrial proceedings where the judge, you know, we talked about the expert witnesses, Dr. Black and the government brought out their own government, uh, expert who the judge was sort of going back and forth between the Dobber hearing, like right in the middle of a Dobrev hearing then says, well, let’s talk about that in motion and eliminate that.
You’re talking about that references this expert. And so we’re talking about all of these issues simultaneously. The point here is that a lot of this should have been dealt with way before we even got to this point. And if it would have been, then we wouldn’t need a tech expert, right? We wouldn’t need to deal with this crap on the fly because we would have dealt with it at the very beginning. And so, sorry, I almost missed that squirrel, but I appreciate that. And that my friends is it for us for the day, big shout outs to some new members over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. We’ve got red beard. We’ve got Mani. Kay, Nicole. We’ve got doctor in the house. We’ve got Facebook law. 1 0 1. We’ve got hobo. Jim joined us mom binos in the house. We’ve got West Virginia Ridger Ridge writer. 68 mayhem studios is here. Ben Tomlinson.
We’ve got Laurel seven 20. We’ve got unsheathed. Techer Greg. We’ve got Tommy nukes, Fantasma, Gloria Black cat. Meow. Nick McLeod. Dr. Britain’s here T Blakemore. We’ve got Patriot minute. Chris C 1 2, 3, Dr. Sammy D pub crawl. Julie fluffers woods. Oh eight karaoke princess. And we have a whole nother slide. My friends have amazing people over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. Not the great we’ve got Cora cocoa, Overton transparency. We’ve got missin Lynn desert pirate. BJR 44 68 9 J bought 1979 DC gen David Orndorff. We’ve got drew Han. Nice T we got miles breeding time. Lord Stu. Test your 22 T O G are all. We’ve got Coronas at dare. We’ve got the next unicorn Jack soul. Yay. The next unicorn again, we’ve got the official glitch dot bef custodies P new Robert Emery and chip Von shoulder. Did I screw that up? I think that’s everybody. We got all of our friends over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com.
Thank you to everybody on YouTube for all of the amazing support. Really appreciate all the tremendous questions and final shout outs to my friends on rumble on Twitch, YouTube on Twitter, over on locals. And that my friends is it for me for the day. We’re going to be back here tomorrow to do it all again. My goodness. I hope that we get some more answers and some of the good answers. I don’t want any bad answers tomorrow. No bad verdicts, only good verdicts. That’s what we’re expecting. And I hope that you join us again for another show. Same time, same place, same location. The time is fluid as we’re always waiting to see what we hear from the courts, but I do hope you stick around and join us for that would love a subscribe would love a, like a thumbs up a comment, and most importantly, a share with friends or family. If you say, Hey, this show is good. Invite them on over to join us. That is it for me. Have a tremendous evening. My friend sleep very well. I’ll see you right back here on the next one tomorrow. Bye-bye.