S5224 - Biden DOJ Has Begun RAIDING Opposition Journalists, Accused Of Leaking Project Veritas Legal Memos
Biden DOJ Has Begun RAIDING Opposition Journalists, Accused Of Leaking Project Veritas Legal Memos. NY Posts editorial board said it looks like the DOJ is targeting opposition journalists.
But now it seems worse.
Someone leaked internal and privileged legal communications from project veritas to the New York Times and the FBI seems like the only likely suspect.
Following the raid on James O'Keefe and other Veritas journalists, someone informed the NYT the raid occurred and then shortly after provided legal documents to the NYT.
Around the same time the FBI was ordered to stop extracting information from Veritas' devices
Seems like the FBI has gone completely rogue
#ProjectVeritas
#Democrats
#JamesOkeefe
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is November 12th, 2021, and our first story.
The FBI not only raided James O'Keefe's home and the homes of Project Veritas journalists, but it appears now they are leaking privileged legal communications to the New York Times.
My friends, this is beyond a scandal.
This is a government agency going beyond rogue.
They say the night is always darkest before the dawn, but boy is it getting dark.
In our next story, the media brings in the Antifa leftist from the Rittenhouse trial who lies and contradicts his own testimony from the hearing.
But it seems Rittenhouse may actually win.
In our next story, the judge agrees with the defense on the gun charge, saying there is an exemption.
If you are 16 or 17 years old, you are allowed to bear a rifle, a long gun.
In which case, he's kicking that instruction to the jury, and Kyle may be acquitted on at least the gun charge.
Now, closing arguments are Monday, so we'll see how it plays out.
If you like the show, please give us a good review.
Please give us five stars.
It really does help.
More importantly, just tell your friends about the show because word of mouth is the best way to help a podcast grow.
Now, let's get into that first story. Last night during the live show over at Timcast IRL,
towards the end of the show, we got word that not only, we already knew this, the FBI raided
Project Veritas, but not only had they raided them, they had seized privileged legal communications
and were leaking them to the New York Times.
I won't mince words.
Project Veritas is involved in a lawsuit against the New York Times for defamation.
For the FBI to provide privileged legal communications to the New York Times, it goes to show you that whatever you want to call the Cold Civil War, the Cultural Civil War, it has escalated beyond what many people ever expected possible.
They say things like it can't happen here.
It's happening now.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, under dubious pretext, Raided the home of James O'Keefe while he's partially clothed, cuffing him and seizing his electronic devices.
Taking his private, privileged legal communications.
Let me just stress, you want to make an argument about a crime being committed?
People have a right to confidence between their lawyers.
The communications were leaked to the New York Times.
The only possible source was the FBI, as many other personalities have attested to.
The FBI sees these communications and all of a sudden the New York Times says, following a raid by the FBI, documents were seized and we've reviewed them.
So they're being leaked to the FBI.
I warned yesterday in a very heated rant.
They'll come for you.
There is no hiding.
You think that complying with tyranny will get you out of it?
No, it will only make it worse.
And if history has taught us anything, it's that no matter who you are, from the lowliest homeless man on the streets to the mightiest media mogul, The machine will come for you.
You may one day find yourself a humble gas station clerk.
And I mean that with all due respect, just working a humble job where you're running a register and selling goods and helping people fuel their vehicles.
And then one day someone makes an accusation against you because they don't like you to the Gestapo, I mean, the FBI.
And the next thing you know is they're kicking your door in and they're stealing your legal communications with your lawyer, providing it to journalists.
I've already seen signs of this in Western countries.
I saw this in Sweden, when local news outlets gained access to hacked communications, comment sections on websites, and then went to the homes of individuals and threatened them, basically like we're going to publish your name and come after you unless you bend the knee.
We've already seen CNN go after people for posting memes.
But now we can see how serious the deep state, the bureaucratic state, whatever it is, we can see just how dirty, dirty it is.
They're going after opposition journalists.
Project Veritas, of course, has been doing investigations into corrupt law enforcement, and this is how they stop it.
We are, we are, as a country, In the territory of the Soviet Union, the fascist states, the authoritarian states of history.
You thought it couldn't happen here.
My friends, this story I will give you now.
It's here.
And people are cheering for it.
Now, many leftists, many progressives realize the danger in a rogue FBI targeting journalists, even if they don't want to concede that Project Veritas is a journalist.
But many on Twitter are still celebrating the authoritarian rise.
These are people who claim to be anti-fascist.
They're fascists.
So I will stress to you before we begin to read the saga that is the egregious violation of constitutional rights and illegal activity from a rogue FBI, which has been bad for some time, mind you.
I will remind you.
There was a man whose home was protested by Black Lives Matter.
The police arrested him.
There was a home that had nothing to do with the disappearance of two girls and Black Lives Matter activists set fire to it twice.
There will come a time When law enforcement, be it police or federal, come to your home and kick your teeth in over some dubious accusation, and they'll do it with a smile on their face.
Because we've already seen the police officers in New York defend the Black Lives Matter mural, which was painted illegally.
There was no permit to paint a message on a street in opposition to Donald Trump in front of Donald Trump's building.
And 27 police officers, I believe, Arrested those who dared to defy the despots.
The police will, to a great degree, law enforcement will, to a great degree, come to your home.
While your children are eating breakfast, they will bash the skull in of your son, and they will drag him out while you beg and scream and have no idea what's going on.
And if you think I'm wrong, then you haven't read history.
I'm not saying all cops are bad.
That's stupid.
I think the police are good.
But the good cops are quitting.
And the FBI is rogue.
Period.
I'm not just going to talk to you about James O'Keefe.
I'm going to talk to you about January 6th.
I'm going to talk to you about Russiagate.
We are at the line.
But I'll stress, I'll stress.
The act of desperation in going after James O'Keefe shows how terrified they really are.
You see, if they were in complete control and had the power that, you know, many assume they had, they wouldn't need to do this.
They'd simply spy on James O'Keefe.
Collect what information they needed.
No, they're panicking.
Because the establishment is faltering and it is collapsing.
And that means we must hold our ground and be peaceful, persuasive, and resourceful.
As more and more elections begin to swing for American-first individuals and populists, be it progressive in some regards or otherwise, we see that the deep state, the administrative state, the bureaucratic state, is in full-on panic mode.
And as Project Veritas, hey, they exposed Epstein, Now there's great work done by Miami Herald investigative reporter Mike Cernovich, but also a light was shown on how the media covered up for Epstein.
I don't think the feds wanted to have to deal with that.
Let's read the news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments on the TimCast IRL Podcast.
And with your membership, you are helping us do a lot.
Two non-profits, one creating technology that will help guard you from censorship.
Free, open-source technology to give you the ability to remain on social media and never be censored.
And another to fact check the liars in the media.
Both will have launched, but they will enter full swing after the new year for tax purposes.
And you're also helping fund journalists.
The goal of all of this, what we're doing with Timcast, is not infinity pools and owning our own private jets or anything.
The money that you give is going into investing in these projects, culture building, challenging the lies and manipulations, defending freedom and liberty, and spreading that ideology of freedom, personal responsibility, life, liberty, and happiness.
Thank you for your support in that regard.
And now, let's all support James O'Keefe as the administrative state goes rogue and tries to shut him down.
Now this is pathetic on the part of the FBI.
It is desperate.
And dare I say, Desperation is a horrible stench.
You see, when you are desperate, you make mistakes.
And it seems that perhaps Project Veritas is engaging in an investigation that's going to really expose someone naughty.
And it could be that they had no choice but to take the most risky and dramatic action.
But now I wonder.
As Project Veritas continues their lawsuit with the New York Times, and the New York Times reveals they have access to Project Veritas' legal, privileged communications, well...
That's a very, very stupid thing to do.
Because now, Project Veritas might be able to get access to that information.
New York Times.
How did you get our privileged legal communications?
Oh, and they can try and make arguments about, um, we'll protect our sources and whatever, but a judge could say, no, this is private legal communications.
Like, this is privileged.
This is a core constitutional right.
Veritas may actually be able to file for defamation charges and then get discovery and discover who the FBI agents are that leaked this information.
I want to start with the with the core of what happened from November 7th.
This sure looks like Biden's Department of Justice persecuting an opposition journalist from the editorial board of the New York Post.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
The FBI and Manhattan federal prosecutors are investigating the case of Ashley Biden's diary.
The president's daughter says it was stolen in a burglary last year.
An obscure right-wing website wound up publishing what it says are pages from it about 10 days before the election.
O'Keefe says, someone shopped the diary to his Project Veritas claiming Biden had left it somewhere.
His outfit didn't use it, in part because it couldn't verify it.
He says he informed law enforcement of the whole thing.
But he has some ties to the outfit that did publish, which seems to be why feds raided the homes of several current or former Veritas employees before dawn, in O'Keefe's own case.
He's outraged the feds urged him not to go public with the subpoenas, but someone dropped a dime to the New York Times, which started calling for comment an hour after the first raids Thursday morning.
Journalists can't be prosecuted for publishing stolen materials unless they were part of the theft, and the theft in question seems to rise to a federal crime.
Shield laws normally mean law enforcement can't make reporters reveal a thing about their sources, even if they didn't publish anything.
Journalists regularly publish materials that had been leaked or even taken.
Consider the Times running President Donald Trump's tax return.
Unless the feds know something about Veritas' sanctioning the burglary, the diary does not warrant pre-dawn raids.
It has all the marks of a political vendetta.
That's not at all a good look for a Biden Justice Department already in ill repute for intimidating parents who just ask questions at school board meetings.
That was the initial report.
The initial report that raids occurred on James O'Keefe and his staff and the New York Times got advanced word, meaning somebody told the New York Times the raids were happening.
It gets worse.
In a new story from the New York Times, we have two journalists, Adam Goldman and Mark Mazzetti.
They write Project Veritas and The Line Between Journalism and Political Spying.
Documents show how the conservative group worked with lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices could go before running afoul of federal laws.
Now, this is what's called false framing.
All news organizations have legal departments.
In fact, when I worked for an ABC News company, they instructed me to talk with lawyers about the legalities of reports we had done.
That is to say, if the New York Times is being fair and correct, I can state definitively that ABC News and Univision regularly meet with lawyers to gauge how far they can go before breaking the law.
Now, that's a ridiculous framing.
Journalists are just trying to make sure they're not going to get sued or charged if they cross certain lines.
Why?
Well, some states have one, two, or all-party consent.
For what James O'Keefe does, undercover reporting, it's probably common that he goes to his lawyer and says, If I go to California and secretly record someone, am I in violation of the law?
And the lawyer will then say, California has a two-party consent state, yada yada yada.
That is to say, that of course he's talking to his lawyers to make sure he doesn't break the law.
Why?
Because if you operate in different states, different states have different laws.
In the article, they say, hours after FBI agents searched the homes of two former Project Veritas operatives last week, James O'Keefe, the leader of the conservative group, took to YouTube to defend his work as the stuff of responsible ethical journalism.
Project Veritas has long occupied a gray area between investigative journalism and political spying.
Stop.
Full stop.
False.
That's a lie.
Channel 4 in the UK has done undercover sting operations.
Undercover journalism has existed for a very, very long time, probably forever.
So, no.
That's just false framing.
That is, in fact, an opinion.
To say that Project Veritas is occupying a gray area between journalism and spying is an opinion.
Of course, the New York Times won't say that.
They say, internal documents obtained by the New York Times reveal the extent to which the group has worked with its lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws.
The documents, a series of memos written by the group's lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations, which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice of employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations, to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials.
Now, it's possible that it wasn't actually the FBI who leaked this.
There's a lot of steps in between, we don't know for sure.
I think it is reasonable to conclude, however, and in my opinion that is the case, and thus the thumbnail and title of this video, are my opinions.
When you have a raid on James O'Keefe and the New York Times gets wind of that raid, someone informed the New York Times the raid occurred.
Is it possible the people who got raided got raided and then called the New York Times to let them know it was happening?
Sure, but extremely unlikely.
Is it possible that someone who is one of these journalists, who likely does not have access to privileged communications between Veritas and its lawyers, leaked them to the New York Times?
Yeah, really unlikely.
Is it possible that James O'Keefe, likely one of the only individuals with access to privileged communications, leaked them to the New York Times?
No, he's currently in a lawsuit with the New York Times.
But maybe there's somebody at Veritas who has access to these emails, or broke in, or did something, and maybe somehow the New York Times gained access to them.
Occam's razor suggests, in the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one.
If, on more than one occasion, the New York Times got access to information pertaining to the FBI, it's likely it's the FBI who's leaking it.
And if documents were seized by Project Veritas, and we now know that a federal judge ordered them to stop exfiltrating the data, And somehow, privileged legal communication ends up in the hands of the New York Times, it is likely the FBI doing it.
Again, I will absolutely entertain the possibility it wasn't, but I think most of us believe it is reasonable to conclude that is the case.
I want to be fair and make sure I can frame it, and make sure you understand, we don't know exactly who did this.
Will Chamberlain.
He's a lawyer.
He tweeted, The FBI raided Project Veritas on a pretext that is now leaking their privileged
communications to the New York Times. This is a scandal. He says, These are classic privileged
communications. Project Veritas asked for a legal opinion on potential journalist activities.
That opinion is a privileged communication. No idea what Adam Goldman NYT was thinking here.
He should be subpoenaed tomorrow and forced to reveal his criminal source.
I didn't even think about the fact that Project Veritas is currently in litigation with the New York Times.
Makes it all the more appalling that the New York Times would publish Veritas' privileged communications.
If the New York Times has these memorandums, why wouldn't it also have Project Veritas' privileged communications that relate directly to Project Veritas' lawsuit against the Times?
This is just a massive, massive scandal.
The New York Times, Delenda Est.
This isn't journalism.
This is straight-up theft.
Hey, Adam Goldman, New York Times, maybe you should have gotten a legal opinion for the in-house lawyers at the Times before you went and published privileged legal advice from an adversarial party.
MEAWW states FBI alleged to have leaked Project Veritas legal memos to New York Times for hit piece.
Alleged.
Alleged.
The Department of Justice has been accused of tipping off the New York Times about recent raids on Project Veritas' current and former employees.
The attorney also suggested federal prosecutors may have leaked the group's legal communications to the newspaper Project Veritas.
The undercover group founded by conservative journalist James O'Keefe has come under the federal scanner over the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden's daughter.
Veritas considered publishing the diary, so we know the details of that.
He didn't.
During an interview on Fox News Thursday night, O'Keefe's attorney Harmeet Dhillon slammed the Times report as a hit piece and demanded to know if the DOJ had leaked the legal memos to the newspaper, which would be deemed an extraordinary and illegal move.
I can't say how the New York Times got this information, but they got it in a way that is illegal and unethical, Dhillon told Fox News.
We have a disturbing situation of the U.S.
Attorney's Office or the FBI tipping off the New York Times to each of the raids on Project Fairtrust's current and former employees.
We know that because minutes after these raids occurred, they got calls from the New York Times, which was the only journalism outlet that knew about it.
And they published this hit piece today, which is really despicable.
I don't think I've ever seen this low from the New York Times before.
To publish people's private legal communications, he added.
This is a scandal of epic proportions.
Every journalist who is not worried about this should hang up their journalism card.
And all First Amendment lawyers as well, Dylan insisted.
I'd like to send it over to Trevor Tim.
Trevor Tim is the Executive Director, Freedom of the Press.
Freedom of the press, he tweeted, I'm sorry, but this is worrying from a press freedom perspective,
unless and until DOJ releases evidence Project Fairtousers was directly involved in the theft,
because if there is none, then the raids could very well be a violation of the Privacy Protection
Act. He says, I know I'm going to get dozens, two dozen replies to this tweet saying,
but O'Keefe is not a journalist.
Read the statute.
It doesn't matter.
I don't personally like Project Veritas at all.
But imagine this was a liberal org under Trump, not a good precedent.
And then he says, dozens of anger responses to these tweets, but amazingly no one has called me out for the two glaring typos.
Someone responded.
Propaganda is not press.
Possession of stolen goods is a crime regardless.
Real journalists know that.
Rare to release evidence before the trial.
Another thing real journalists know.
Propaganda is press.
We don't like it.
We don't like when CNN lies.
We don't like it when Good Morning America runs the state's witness and allows him to contradict his own under oath testimony to undermine the Rittenhouse trial or the perspective into what's happening.
But we allow the freedom of the press, even for those we do not like.
So, when someone is accused of being propaganda, well, we have to respect the process.
The First Amendment, the right to the press, because everyone's got their perspective and opinions, and some people lie, but people are allowed to speak.
Lies are protected under the First Amendment, to certain degrees.
You're not allowed to defame and libel people, but you're allowed to make up some things.
I know, it's despicable.
I'm not a fan.
Possession of stolen goods is not a crime.
You see, this is what these people don't... they don't know or they don't care.
Either way, they are cogs in a machine cranking out evil.
If Project Veritas, through protected journalistic practices, came across private information or something stolen, then they go to their lawyers and they have conversations about what they do, and ultimately Project Veritas turned it over to law enforcement.
They did not publish it.
They said, hey, this should go to the feds, or I believe local police.
And apparently they're being accused of transporting stolen goods over state lines.
I do not believe that Project Veritas did anything wrong in this capacity.
But you can see when you're engaging in the act of journalism, they will come for you.
Let's talk about reality here.
This is from just a few days ago, after the FBI raids.
This is not the worst thing in the world.
position tape number one. Former editorial page editor says he endeavored to consider
how readers interpret words in an article but failed to do that. This is not the worst
thing in the world. I don't want to act like this video they've put out from May of 2020
is like the worst thing you'll ever see from a news organization. But the point is that
Project Veritas is adversarial to the New York Times.
They are currently investigating and exposing corruption, and they are suing the New York Times over defaming them.
Lies.
A judge actually ruled the New York Times put opinions in their articles about Veritas.
Now, I believe the New York Times got a stay on Discovery, meaning it's on hiatus or whatever.
Then all of a sudden, the FBI raids O'Keefe.
All of a sudden, information about the raids is leaked to the New York Times, who he's suing, and then later, his privileged legal communications gets leaked to the New York Times.
I think we've seen enough throughout the past several years to know what's happening.
I think actually it's not all bad news.
Now, it's horrifying what they're doing to James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, and scary, absolutely.
But as I mentioned earlier, I think it shows the fear, the panic, the ineptitude, and the desperation of the deep state, of the administrative state, of the rogue political operatives, whatever you want to call it.
This is overt.
I mean, you want to spy on James O'Keefe?
No one will know about it.
James could come out and say, they're spying on me, and people would say, you're crazy.
Now James O'Keefe comes out and says, they raided my home.
They took my lawyer's communications in violation of all constitutional rights and legal rights, your right to counsel and privileged communications.
They did that because they're desperate.
Because they're losing.
Because they're going to lose.
But my friends, the night is always darkest before the dawn.
And I don't know if we're heading in the direction of the sun rising.
We can make the assumption that the darkest portion of the night has come and dawn will be in only a matter of minutes.
Or we could argue this is the sun setting.
And you better expect worse.
I believe it's fair to say in the next few years things are going to get very, very bad.
Why?
Look at what happened in this past election with Virginia and Pennsylvania, Long Island, and New Jersey.
The Democrats got obliterated.
I mean, they just lost.
It was bad.
New Jersey, almost lost.
Some people have questions about what's going on up in New Jersey, but there may be a recount.
You look at the state senator in New Jersey, who spent only 153 bucks and won.
Didn't even really campaign.
People just don't want Democrats to win.
If people, regular people, come out, Vote locally.
And win their states.
And primary neocons and establishment republicans for populists.
This country will recover.
The United States will rebound.
Life will get better.
But the bureaucratic state will spiral.
They will freak out.
They will thrash and lash out.
And I believe that's what we're starting to see.
They're not going to go quietly into the good night.
They're not going to give up.
They're going to try and retain power by any means necessary.
Lying, cheating, and stealing.
Now, what happened to Project Veritas is one of the scariest things I've seen so far.
It is one of the scariest things.
Look, we've seen regular people get arrested by cops in their own homes.
We've seen Black Lives Matter get away with killing people.
Not all of them.
Some of them haven't.
We've seen Trump's fecklessness, his unwillingness to invoke the Insurrection Act to stop riots that were occurring over 100 days, sporadically across the country but in the Pacific Northwest consistently.
He did nothing.
The LA riots, you had, I believe the military, the National Guard was deployed, I think Army, I'm not sure.
And they quarantined certain areas where the rioting was out of control.
They took action to stop the riots.
What I think we're going to see is, in the next few years, next year, I mean, we're about to enter 2022.
Campaigning season is going to start beginning for the midterms.
And do you think the Democrats are just going to accept losing their power?
Do you think the establishment will just roll over and give up?
Or do you think they're going to do everything in their power to make sure that populist messages do not succeed?
Do you think they'll do everything in their power to stop people like James O'Keefe?
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
In the previous election cycle, early, they go after Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, prominent voices that were promoting Donald Trump.
Well, there still are prominent voices that are promoting America first, nationalism, populism, whatever, to varying degrees, not completely, or liberty, or anti-woke.
The next cycle that will occur is that with Alex Jones and some of these other individuals now banned from most of these platforms, they'll find new targets.
They'll go after Steven Crowder, and they have been.
They have been going after Steven Crowder.
Strike after strike after strike, even when he just cites the CDC, they're looking for an excuse.
Because he's a powerful, prominent voice who's going to help someone like DeSantis or Donald Trump, someone who might actually come in and purge the bureaucratic state.
The FBI, for instance.
And then, not too far away is the work I'm doing.
I don't think I'm in the same...
Reach, right now, as some higher-profile individuals, but we're certainly close enough.
And maybe we're worse.
We're moderate.
Tim Kast IRL is a mixed bag of opinions from slightly left to conservative to moderate, and that means regular people on the center-left or in the middle are gonna hear a lot more conservative opinions, and it may sway people, at least away from the far left.
And that's a problem for the establishment and the neocons.
I mean, you take a look at Project Lincoln.
It was never about the party.
It was always about the elites who control the system.
Project Lincoln claimed to be principled Republicans opposing Trump because he was corrupt.
Now that Trump is out, they're just saying, eh, all Republicans are bad.
And they're just promoting Democrats.
Because the Democratic Party has become the party of the wealthy elites.
And you look at the neocons, they've all rushed over to become Democrats because that is their path to elitism.
I bring you now The Daily Mail.
Breaking news.
Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, now faces criminal contempt of Congress charges for refusing to appear for his January 6th testimony.
We had a conversation with Kash Patel, and he was talking about how when you're subpoenaed for these things, it is very, very expensive.
And some people can't afford it.
You have to go and testify for Congress, you gotta get a lawyer, you've gotta have legal advice on, you know, what you can and can't talk about, and it's very, very expensive.
So what happens if you don't have the money?
What happens if you can't afford legal representation for something like this?
Well, then you're gonna get in trouble.
You will get in serious trouble.
You will be ripped to shreds in these in these depositions, these hearings.
And if you refuse to show up, they will charge you criminally.
Mark Meadows is facing criminal contempt charges.
Steve Bannon is.
The House voted to hold Bannon in contempt.
We'll see.
Take a look at this.
January 6th Committee issues 10 more subpoenas, including to Stephen Miller and Kayleigh McEnany.
Kayleigh McEnany?
It's not about anything meaningful.
What the January 6th Committee is doing is using the process as punishment.
They're consuming your time, your mind, and your money.
They want to make sure you're off base.
They want to make sure you can't do work.
They want to make sure that by subpoenaing you, they jam you up to a degree where you cannot be effective.
That's what they're doing.
And they're draining resources.
Because they're funded by the government.
They can just do it.
The reason I bring this up in the context of James O'Keefe is because I believe we are witnessing the rise of the totalitarian state.
It's been happening for some time.
I mean, 9-11, the Patriot Act, these are all bad things.
The NDAA, indefinite detention provision under Barack Obama.
All of these things seemingly meaningless.
The idea that the government can just say, oh, by the way, we have the right to arrest you in violation of the Constitution, and you're like, no you don't, that's stupid, you'll never win in court.
And Barack Obama goes and kills some American citizens without charge or trial.
And says, yeah, well, too bad.
And I remember Luke Rutkowski, you know him from the IRL Show.
We have him on, uh, he's been a guest on the show frequently.
He once interviewed, I believe it was, um, what's his name, Charlie Gibbs?
I could be getting it wrong.
Peter Gibbs or whatever.
Somebody worked for the Obama administration who said, after Obama killed an American citizen, he said, yeah, well, he should have had a better dad.
Amazing.
I believe is what he said, he should have had a better dad.
Barack Obama.
No one stopped him.
He wasn't charged criminally.
He got away with it.
That's where we are.
And it's escalating.
We're now at the point where the Feds will go after opposition political factions.
James O'Keefe doesn't engage in policy debates.
He's just got a perspective.
At least conservative.
And he goes after everybody.
He exposed the Epstein cover-up from ABC.
He's exposed nursing home scandals completely unrelated to any political institution.
Because Project Veritas does undercover reporting.
And look at Wikileaks.
What do they do?
Journalistic outfit.
They receive information.
They publish it.
Like any other news organization.
And for that, Julian Assange is rotting in prison.
For like, what is it going on now?
Eight years or so.
Well, I should say, he was in the Ecuadorian embassy because, you know, he fled.
We are dealing with evil.
They've seized power of our institutions a long time ago, and not completely, just enough.
And good people, good men, did nothing, as the saying goes.
So I tell you now, there is a path towards purging the corrupt, and it's very, very simple.
You must be peaceful, persuasive, and resourceful.
January 6th was the biggest misstep by Trump and his supporters ever.
It gave the establishment all of the fuel they needed to deploy tens of thousands of National Guard and bolster federal law enforcement, and now they're expanding the Capitol Police nationwide.
Because violence is a trick.
We are not in the 1600s or the 1700s.
We're in fourth and fifth generational warfare.
Peaceful, persuasive, resourceful tactics are the only that work.
You know how I know?
Donald Trump won.
How did he win?
People voted for him.
And now you have a narrative that voting is pointless and that's a lie and that's wrong.
The next thing you need to pay attention to as we watch this go down, you must vote in your local elections.
Find out who your state senator is, who your state rep is.
Vote for people who believe in freedom.
Win these legislatures, and we get closer to a potential convention of states.
Maybe not a perfect solution, but at the very least, your state can then pass laws to protect your rights.
Primary the incumbents, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.
Even, listen, in the Democratic Party of the Progressive Insurgency, in the Republican Party of the Populist Insurgency, in the Libertarian Party, you have the Mises Caucus.
Change is coming.
And I believe we're on track to win.
But the night is always darkest before the dawn, which is to say, expect worse.
But stay vigilant.
Vote locally.
Look, the midterms are coming up.
Get active in these primaries.
And hopefully things don't result in national divorce or anything, you know, violent.
Hopefully that never happens.
It's already bad enough to see what's happening in the streets in Kenosha.
And what might happen now with the verdict in the Rittenhouse case.
We gotta make sure we throw our support behind Project Veritas, so make sure you guys are helping support them.
You know, you can go to projectveritas.com and you can make donations to Project Veritas to help them fight their legal battles because they may be one of the only true journalistic enterprises in the United States right now.
I hope you're paying attention.
And I hope you are speaking out.
Or forever hold your peace.
Things will get worse.
If we all stand up right now, if everyone did, they'd get better overnight.
Let's win some elections.
Let's take back control of our respective states.
Let's primary the incumbent crony establishment and bring in real candidates who represent us and prove the American system works.
We will not let these corrupt cultists destroy it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
One of the state's key witnesses, one of the perpetrators of the attack on Kyle Rittenhouse, Gage Grosskreutz, appeared on Good Morning America and then CNN to clarify the statements he made while he was under oath.
In his news statements, he's basically saying he didn't point a weapon at Kyle Rittenhouse and he did this on national television and they let him do it.
To be fair, on CNN, Anderson Cooper said, I'm going to play the clip from the trial.
And I respect it.
Because in the clip from the trial, the defense says it wasn't until you pointed your weapon at Kyle Rittenhouse, advanced on him with your hands down, gun pointed at him, that he shot you.
In that video, Gage Grosskreutz says, yes.
And that is under oath.
Now he appears on TV and says, no, I didn't.
And we're supposed to believe him.
Worse still, many people will believe him.
I believe the Good Morning America interview was gross misconduct on the part of the press.
And as for CNN, I actually think they did a good job.
Now, the dude still went on TV and tried lying, but good on Anderson Cooper for playing the clip.
Because I think we've got to rely on people to understand the truth.
Now, tribalists are still going to deflect and be like, Oh, see, you know, the defense tricked him or something.
But I think there's a big difference between being under oath and being on TV, where you can say whatever you want.
On Good Morning America, that's what he was basically told by, what's the guy's name, Michael Strahan or whatever.
He was like, you can just say whatever you want.
You're safe here.
And he's like, okay, I didn't point the gun at him.
Yeah, because you're not going to get charged for perjury for lying to TV.
But on the stand, when this dude admitted he pointed a weapon at Kyle Rittenhouse, yeah, that is under oath.
So again, I will stress, I will stress, in the interview with CNN, Anderson Cooper says, I want to play the clip from the trial, and let's see if Twitter loads it.
It's not loading it.
Alright, whatever, you get the point.
He actually plays the clip.
Now, there's a few things that need to be addressed as far as it goes with media lies and how the court's been manipulating and cheating.
And I think one of the big stories right now is how many leftists are waking up to the truth.
You see, someone like Gage Grosskreutz, going on TV and lying, it may keep some of the NPCs trapped in bubble world, where they only hear the lies and the nonsense.
But a lot of regular people, a lot of leftists, a lot of progressives have been watching the trial and seeing them on Twitter has been shocking.
Notably, we talked about Anna Kasparian.
But now we have a bunch of other people.
We have smaller Twitter users and we have high-profile verified accounts saying, I was wrong and I'm sorry.
This is the way the culture war has been working.
There are those of us who know the truth.
They will claim in the media that anybody who says the truth is right-wing.
They'll accuse me of being right-wing when I'm clearly not politically right-wing.
But as they continue to draw the dividing line between honesty and deception, and say that honesty is right-wing and deception is left-wing, well then I guess sure.
What does left and right really mean?
I mean, when we're talking about economics or progressive versus traditional issues, cultural issues, then left typically means like command economy, centralized control via the government, and typically means progressivism.
And the right typically means free market enterprise, decentralization, and liberty.
I don't really think that makes sense in the big picture because there are left libertarians.
But if we're really talking about the culture war...
Then I can tell you this.
The reason why they accused me of being right-wing, because I'll tell the truth, Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.
Oh, now all of these leftists are starting to watch the trial and they're like, wow, we were wrong.
And therein lies the big problem that we have in this country.
The press is unsalvageable.
They are evil, despicable people who seek to destroy and cause harm.
And they have allies, because it is not just the media, it is the cult.
In the bigger picture, let me break something down for you.
I made a tweet, and it was meant to make a point, but some people, you know, thought it was funny.
I said, people keep trying to cheer on this Kenosha guy.
He shows up to Kenosha from far away with a gun he's not illegally allowed to possess, telling everybody he's an EMT and he's there to provide aid, and then he ends up attacking people with his gun!
Of course, I'm talking about Gage Grosskreutz, not Kyle Rittenhouse.
Gage Grosskreutz was from 40 or so miles away, shows up to a riot with a gun he's in illegal possession of, claiming he's an EMT when he's not, and then he attacks people.
Yet, they don't say that on the left.
Now, I'm not here to talk about... I will point out those similarities between Kyle Rittenhouse and Gage Grosskreutz.
It's important.
The media doesn't do it.
The media keeps saying the lone survivor and the wounded EMT.
He's not an EMT.
Apparently his EMT license expired like four years ago.
So three years before the event in question.
I don't know for sure.
That's just preliminary information that's come out through various reports.
So I want to make sure I'm being clear because I didn't actually go into the database and then ask the courts or whatever if his paperwork is legal.
But he's not an EMT.
He's an as EMT as Kyle Rittenhouse is.
Take a look at this.
Let me pull up some more tweets and show you what's going on.
In the trial, there were several attempts to lie and cheat on the part of the prosecution.
And so when I talk about criticism of the media, Good Morning America allowing this guy to go on TV and lie, Good Morning America also called Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer and had to delete the tweet.
But I want to talk about how the prosecution also, these are evil people.
We must not Look, in the past, I'd say something like, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
It's called Hanlon's Razor.
I still stand by Hanlon's Razor.
However, the point about what can be explained by incompetence, this is the important point.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
You cannot explain the prosecution's multiple attempts at violating the Constitution and admitting false evidence as incompetence.
Incompetence is, fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Incompetence is like, this dude made a clear mistake.
When the prosecutor is told explicitly, do not admit that as evidence, and then he does.
That is not incompetence.
That is willfully violating a court ruling and getting admonished for it.
And then when he questions Drew Hernandez the other day, Drew Hernandez is a journalist, and he says, you say you're a journalist, but you put out opinion.
The prosecution trying to bring up political bias in a trial with a fact witness who has testified to what they saw, their bias, meaningless.
They're under oath.
Regardless of their bias, they've made a fact statement.
If you think they're lying about it, then bring perjury charges.
But this is what they do.
Evil people have been encroaching in our institutions.
Let me show you this image.
This is Gage Grosskreutz, who showed up to a riot with a gun he was in illegal possession of, who is not an EMT, who is a revolutionary there for political purposes, who has said, long live the revolution, who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse with no knowledge of what had happened.
I want to stress this point for everybody.
They say things like, he was trying to stop a mass shooter.
Definitively proven in court not true.
Gage Grosskreutz testified he didn't know about any shooting.
He didn't witness any shooting.
He had no reason to believe that Kyle Rittenhouse had committed any shooting.
All he knew, according to his own testimony, was that Kyle Rittenhouse said he was working with the police.
And based on that information alone, he ran at him and pulled out a gun and pointed it at him.
Now, It is not true.
Kyle Reynolds never said he was working with the police.
But Gage Grosskreutz, in multiple police statements, said that's what he thought.
So in his frame of mind, he was thinking, Police informant, I will pull out my gun and attack.
This narrative of stopping a mass shooter is bunk.
Now in his testimony, he said it's a very large caliber rifle.
I'm nitpicking here a little bit.
Because a .223 is not a very large caliber rifle.
The reason why we use... So .223 and .556 are interchangeable.
They're not the same rounds.
I believe .556 has higher chamber pressure.
So typically faster, higher velocity and things like that.
But they're interchangeable, meaning they look almost identical.
The size of the round.
Again, the pressure, I believe, is different.
You can't put a 5.56 in a 2.23, but you can put a 2.23 in a 5.56.
That being said, it is not a very large caliber rifle.
2.23 and 5.
We use 5.56 typically because in war, in combat, you want to be able to carry more rounds.
The idea being that these are particularly powerful, and being able to fire more rounds is better than being able to fire one big round.
But as you can see in the image, there are many, many more rounds that are much, much larger.
The next, I believe, you know, fairly common round, a .308 or a 7.62, are particularly larger.
So when he says it's a very large caliber rifle, in fact, when it comes to a rifle, a .223 is particularly small.
Now, I'm not gonna say it's a .17, you know, super mag or whatever.
You know, they're very small, but they have high velocity and they'll, like, vaporize a beaver or whatever.
Whatever it is you're firing upon.
It's not a very large caliber rifle.
This is an attempt in my opinion.
I know I'm nitpicking because it's not the biggest issue in the world.
But this is one example of how they try to pull a fast one on the jury.
They try to lie to manipulate the jury.
Which brings me to the next most important thing that happened the other day.
And again, I want to stress too.
I got a bunch of stuff to show you of leftists acknowledging they were wrong and Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty.
And I'll show that, but I gotta go through how the prosecution is trying to lie, cheat, and steal, and how this whole system is... Let this be evidence, my friends, of how they lie to you in the press.
Here's the image in question.
Can you see anything?
I'm not gonna prime you for what this image is.
I am not going to tell you what this image is.
Take a look on the screen and you tell me what you see.
And you know what people will say?
Here's the image in question. Can you see anything? I'm not gonna prime you for what this image is.
I am not going to tell you what this image is. Take a look on the screen and you tell me what you see.
And you know what people will say? I have no idea what that is.
Because in reality, you don't.
So this is the image that was admitted, which is fake.
A fake image.
That's right.
It's fake.
Let me explain.
A drone had been filming the night in question.
The prosecution got it only the previous week.
It was admitted into evidence.
You don't really see much of anything new on the drone footage.
However, The prosecution, having now a grainy, incomprehensible bit of footage, purported, they claimed to the jury, that it shows Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people before he was attacked by Joseph Rosenbaum and Zeminsky, who was armed.
And in fact, you can't see anything in this video.
Now, here's where it gets really important.
The original image is a crop from a video and it is very blurry and grainy because the drone was too far away to actually see anything.
The image on the left is an artificially enhanced image using a computer algorithm that injected information that is not from the video.
The defense wasn't capable enough to explain to the judge why this should not be admitted, and it should not be.
But because they couldn't explain simply to the judge, it ended up getting admitted.
Now it is a desperate Hail Mary that I don't think will convince the jury of anything, because you literally can't see anything.
But it is shocking to me how the prosecution used fabricated evidence and it is shocking to me the judge allowed it.
It is shocking to me the defense did not have the wherewithal to explain it's not a real image.
Let me explain.
Pixels!
You know what pixels are?
Great.
Um, I'm using 4K monitors, which is, uh, I don't know what is the exact number, like 2,180 or whatever, uh, pixels in one direction.
But let's go by, uh, you know, like 1080p. 1080!
1080, 1080 pixels, little tiny dots that broadcast a color.
And when all of these colors come together, you get your computer screen.
All right.
I will simplify.
I want to explain some of the nitty-gritty that they tried to explain, but I can simplify this for you in a second.
What the defense kept saying, which is very confusing to the layman, is that when you use algorithmic manipulation on these images to enlarge them, pixels are added to the image.
He asked the expert for the prosecution what color pixel is being added.
I don't know, he said.
I don't know how the algorithm works, but it's a forensic software we use.
Okay.
So then the prosecution says to the judge, Your Honor, with all due respect, the defense is trying to manipulate.
They're trying to use your ignorance of technology against you to prevent you from using what is simply an enlarged image.
A lie.
And the judge said, I don't understand.
Okay, we'll let the jury decide.
I'll make it very simple for all of you to understand how evil these people are.
Before you are two images.
One is bigger than the other.
The image on the right is a collection of data.
Each pixel is information.
The information comes from light.
On August 25th, light reflecting off of surfaces hits a sensor on a camera which records those patterns.
The recording is 100% from the night in question.
The image to the left, which was admitted into evidence, is not from the night in question.
In fact, it contains a substantial amount of data that did not come from light hitting a sensor on the day in question.
That is to say, it is no different than if you were to take the image on the right and draw a picture of Kyle Rittenhouse and say, this is my interpretation of what it was.
The expert couldn't testify as to how the image came into existence.
He doesn't know.
The prosecution should have brought in an expert who could testify to what the algorithm does.
They didn't!
It should not have been admitted.
Now, is the image on the left a facsimile of the actual knight in question?
Yes, a facsimile.
Meaning, it is fairly complicated, but it's simple to say.
The defense could have gone to the expert witness and say, the image you are attempting to present in court, is it a photograph or video from the knight in question?
And he would have said, no.
There you go, that simple.
Was the information collected in this image from the night in question?
Some of it.
Some of it?
No, no, no, no.
Is this a complete photograph containing only information from the night in question?
No, it's not.
Your Honor, then why is this evidence?
It is not an image from the night in question.
It is effectively an artist's rendition.
And it is, just because someone used an algorithm to manipulate a photo, and they tried doing that to claim that Kyle Reynolds was pointing a weapon at people.
In fact, if you look at the image, you can see the sign.
There's a big white sign, right?
In the blurry image, because the sensor actually picked up some of that information, you can see it is fairly easily defined in the image.
In the enhanced version, there's a weird ghost sign appearing behind it.
It is shocking to me that the defense did not have the wherewithal to simply say, the image attempting to be presented to the jury, your honor, is not a photograph of the night in question.
It is a computer rendering from last week of what a computer thinks may have occurred.
It is not a video of the night in question.
Case closed, period.
The prosecution pulled a fast one.
Let me show you some of this stuff.
This is great.
Raw Egg Nationalist.
Now, I did show some of these posts yesterday, but I want to just highlight this stuff again.
Sarah Beth Berwick tweeted, I am highly educated and reasonably perceptive.
And it was only today that I learned that the Kyle Rittenhouse victims were white.
My progressive bubble made this seem like a very different case than it is.
In this image that was posted, I don't know where it was originally posted, but the patriots.win, the Donald Trump forum had it.
Hear Me Roar says, Kyle Rittenhouse, I am sorry I unfairly judged you and thought you were a racist.
Watching parts of the trial were both humbling and horrifying.
When this happened months ago, I was a sheep.
I watched CNN and bought what they were selling.
I truly believe that Kyle was some racist kid that drove across state lines to a faraway place armed with an AR to F-ish up for ish and giggles at a peaceful BLM protest.
I believe that he opened fire and killed innocent black people.
that were rightfully and peacefully protesting their right for equality. This week I learned I
was lied to about what really happened. A lot. I am horrified and embarrassed by my ignorance and
unwillingness to recognize propaganda. The past several months have opened my eyes to a lot of
things and for that I am grateful but I will own it to Kyle Rittenhouse my deepest and sincerest
apologies. Take a look at this from Bill Ackman.
He said last night nary and I watched several hour hours of Kyle Rittenhouse direct testimony and cross-examination
We came away believing that Kyle is telling the truth and that he acted in self-defense
We found him to be a civic minded Patriot with a history of helping his community as an EMT
and fireman in training and is removing hate graffiti Earlier that day from a local school and ultimately in
volunteering to protect a business during the night of the riots in Kenosha
Our first-hand impression of Kyle were materially different from those we had previously formed based on media reports
and opinion pieces We had consumed
I have always been frustrated to read an inaccurate press report about a subject I know well, yet somehow I continue to believe other articles in the same newspaper about subjects I know less well.
Media and political bias are dividing our country and destroying lives.
While we have not heard the entire trial, based on our assessment of Kyle on the stand, we believe that he will be found innocent by the jury.
I want to stress this.
For those that don't understand, juries don't find you innocent.
They find you not guilty.
But typically when people say an innocence verdict, that means the jury realizes that this person is innocent and says not guilty on all counts.
Usually when someone says not guilty, they're like, you haven't proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If a jury colloquially has an innocence verdict, that's when they truly believe a miscarriage of justice is occurring.
He goes on to say, I encourage you to watch the trial.
Or at minimum, his testimony and cross-examination before you form a view of his guilt or innocence.
With respect to my own political bias, I am not a gun owner nor a member of the NRA.
On balance, I support stronger gun regulations and removing loopholes in the sale of gun laws.
Unfortunately, it seems that society's view of Kyle's innocence depends more on one's views about gun control rather than what actually took place in August.
Kyle Rittenhouse's life is at risk.
Justice demands a fair trial.
Society would benefit greatly if politics did not enter the courtroom and convict innocent people.
And now?
The kicker.
Just got a call from the media asking if my Twitter account was hacked.
That is, the reporter couldn't conceive of the idea that I could believe that Kyle is innocent because I am not a right winger.
Crazy.
No, I'm sorry, Bill Ackman.
I'm not super familiar with who Bill Ackman is other than he is a, you know, a left kind of individual.
You are right wing.
When I watched the night in question, and I brought in, I think we had what, five witnesses on TimCast IRL?
Maybe five.
Yeah, we've had Julio Rosas on the show, we've had Richie McGinnis, we've had Drew Hernandez, we had Shelby Talcott, and man, who am I, I know I'm forgetting somebody.
But we had, I believe, five different witnesses, and I apologize for forgetting who else we did have on the show who was a witness.
But, uh, they all told us what happened.
And I said, based on the eyewitness testimony and video evidence, I believe that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.
The media immediately tried to use that to smear me.
And they put it in my Wikipedia page, saying, Tim Pool openly defended Kyle Rittenhouse.
And I know what the goal of that is.
Because they were lying to people, claiming that Kyle Rittenhouse did things he did not do.
To this day, the media is still lying.
But people had a chance to watch the trial, and now they're waking up.
Even Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks said, I was wrong.
These leftists on Twitter all like I can't believe how wrong I was and to this day You get people like Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks saying things like Critical race theory is not being taught in schools when you have the national a major teachers union Literally publishing why we teach critical race theory in schools because Cenk Uygur knows his only opportunity is to lie That's what the Young Turks do.
Now, Anna admitted she was wrong about Kal Retinas, and I respect it.
I absolutely do.
And I hope more people on the left wake up, because I don't care about your politics on economic policy.
You want to talk about universal healthcare?
Absolutely, but we have to start from a place of telling the truth first.
Now I look at universal health care.
I've long been a supporter of that and environmental regulations and policies of a similar nature.
But there becomes a big challenge when the government, when the establishment political powers and the media lie.
I don't believe centralizing power over our health care in the hands of the government would be a good thing.
I believe they will use that to harm people.
In which case, as much as I would prefer basic level of health care for everyone, a decentralized system is better.
Which brings me to my more modern view on how we could have universal health care.
A voucher system.
Everybody pays taxes.
Some people pay more taxes than others because they make more money.
Or we have a progressive tax system.
And then you receive a voucher and you're able to go to privately run hospitals And when you go for healthcare, you have government funding for that healthcare, but you can choose to go wherever you want.
That creates market competition, but the ability of everyone to get access.
Not a perfect solution.
Not a perfect at all.
And maybe it won't work.
The fact is, giving the government final say in how all of our healthcare is done would be a disaster.
And I'm learning this because I'm watching the lies, the cheating, and the stealing.
And people, we need to wake up to this and we need to wake up others.
Share this video with people who don't realize what's going on.
Watch Freedom Tunes.
Go to Freedom Tunes and look at the latest video that he put out about Joseph Rosenbaum, the man who died that night.
He had committed atrocities against children.
And it's very important you understand this.
I can't say the crime he committed against a child because YouTube would probably give me a strike or do something negative this video because Joseph Rosenbaum had just gotten out of a mental hospital.
He was sentenced to prison for 15 years for committing the most serious crime you can commit against a child short of taking their life.
And arguably, maybe even not, maybe the most serious crime against a child.
Wait till you read Snopes.
You think I'm joking?
You think I'm being facetious?
No, no, no, no, no.
You go read Snopes about Joseph Rosenbaum and you will throw up after reading about who this guy is and what he had done.
And people need to understand that detail.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see y'all then.
One of the most contentious aspects of the Kyle Rittenhouse case is the gun charge because many progressives, leftists, are saying no matter what happened that night, no matter who is at fault, Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty because he was in the process of committing a crime and self-defense does not apply in this regard.
Wrong.
Not true.
And if that was true, there wouldn't even be a trial.
But ladies and gentlemen, we have big news!
Sort of.
It appears the judge has agreed finally with the defense that Kyle Rittenhouse was legally allowed to keep and bear that rifle.
Which effectively means, well, it should be tossed out, but the judge stopped short and said he was going to provide his instructions to the jury.
I'm sorry, he's going to provide the defense's request for instruction to the jury.
I don't know if this means the defense has won across the board, but it certainly seems like based on the rhetoric the judge has provided, he is going to state, he is going to give instructions to the jury which say, take into consideration the provision that says the law only applies if you are under the age of 16.
Okay, I gotta slow down here.
I got some tweets to show you.
I got an article from Andrew Branca, the injustice of the gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse.
This goes out.
Cal Rittenhouse very well may be acquitted of all charges, but I don't think the judge is ready to toss the whole charge.
I think the judge wants to give a full set of instructions to the jury, and there was a lot going on.
You're gonna love this.
The state said to the judge, Your Honor, the law makes no sense.
And the judge said, if it makes no sense, you're out of luck.
How is a regular person supposed to live their life if the law, as read, makes no sense?
In which case, how could a judge instruct a jury to enforce a law that makes no sense against someone who is abiding by the statutes of that law?
Long story short, we have all long since argued the gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse is incorrect.
Initially, after the night in question, I said, the law plainly reads you cannot have a dangerous weapon under the age of 18.
And then I said, if he's in the process of committing a crime, I don't think he's going to have a strong defense.
Because someone might say, he was committing a crime.
I was wrong.
Talk to experts, and they said, read the exemptions.
Only if you are under 16.
Amazing.
Now, this may actually be a technicality that the law was broken, but I do think you can read the law and understand, as it's being drafted, what the legislation of Wisconsin meant when they created this law.
To put it simply, a law gets drafted and says you can't have a weapon under the age of 18, a dangerous weapon, and then it goes to committee and they all discuss it and someone says, what about if I'm going hunting with my kid?
Your kid could be 12!
And they say, okay, well, if you're supervising your kid and you're hunting, this won't apply to you.
And someone said, come on, my 16, 17 year old kid can't go out and hunt?
It's Wisconsin, there's tons of rural areas.
And said, okay, so you have to be in violation of both of those provisions, basically.
It makes sense.
Meaning, if you are under... This is my understanding.
If you're 15, but with your dad or parent hunting, you can bear a gun.
If you're 15 and with your dad in the middle of a street with a rifle, you can't.
If you're 16 or 17, you are allowed to bear a long gun.
Let me show you some of what's going on.
This is all breaking right now.
I had to push back my normal recording schedule because I'm sitting here listening to the live testimony, and it looks really, really good for Kyle Rittenhouse.
Check it out.
We're tracking Andrew Branca's commentary here.
I think he's actually one of the best.
He's an expert on self-defense, and he's got a full breakdown of the gun charge, so I'm going to read to you the injustice of the gun charge.
I did talk about it the other day, but this is extremely relevant because this could pull the rug out from the entire case.
Many leftists have come out—progressives, Democrat, whatever—saying, I realized I was wrong about Kyle Rittenhouse.
He was defending himself.
But to maintain the narrative, what we're seeing from still many anti-activists because they want to win is, yeah, well, he was illegally possessing a weapon.
Many people on Twitter have consistently said, crossing state lines with a gun.
Not true.
He did not do that.
And so once the news became irrefutable and everyone said, okay, he didn't cross state lines with a gun, they changed it to, he crossed state lines and illegally obtained a gun.
No, he did not.
Law of Self-Defense.
Andrew Branca tweeted.
I'm going to go through some of these tweets because I want to show you what the state was saying.
It's amazing.
Looking like Judge Schroeder is going to toss the gun charge.
That would be the correct decision on these facts.
The only correct decision on this charge on these facts.
The judge is not biased.
I wish he was!
The left keeps saying he's biased.
The judge didn't throw the charge out.
He just said he's gonna give the jury the full statute the jury is likely going to acquit.
But the judge, as a question of law, should say, Kyle's not under 16!
You can't charge him with a crime!
It's remarkable.
Think about it this way.
Let's say there was a law that said, in order to be charged with jaywalking, you'd have to cross the street while not in a crosswalk.
And then the state charges you with the crime of jaywalking and tells the judge he was in the crosswalk, but it was at the wrong light.
How can you charge someone with a crime when you know it does not apply to what just happened?
Okay, let me read more of this.
From Andrew Branca, Kraus the ADA says, if you accept the defense's reading of the gun law, the law makes no sense, and the judge says if it makes no sense, you, state, are out of luck.
The law does make sense.
It's not hard to understand.
The problem is the judge is sitting up there, not biased, trying to understand both arguments.
And then the law is being read by the defense accurately.
It says there's two provisions you must be in violation of, and Rittenhouse was not.
The law was specifically crafted with exemptions.
Think about it this way.
If you're under the age of 18, you can't have a handgun.
If you're under the age of 18, but at least 16 or 17, you can't have a long gun.
Let's put it this way.
Are you familiar with Romeo and Juliet laws?
You as an adult cannot engage in adult activity with someone under the age of 18 in many states.
However, most states then have a provision called the Romeo and Juliet Law which states, if the person is within X amount of years of the individual, this law shall not apply.
To put it simply, if you are 18 years old and you're a mature adult, And you are having adult relations with someone who is 17, a minor.
In many states, the strict reading of the law is, you're abusing a child.
But we've crafted Romeo and Juliet laws because we're like, dude, if the guy's one month older than his girlfriend, that is not abusing a child.
And these cases have come up, which is why we have crafted these exemptions.
I remember going over a story out of Illinois, where a guy was like 6 months older than his girlfriend.
They were both 17, but the family hated the guy.
The day he turned 18, and their daughter was still 17, they called the police, and the police said, a strict reading of the law states, if you are over the age of 18, engaging in adult activities with someone under the age of 18, you have committed the crime of statutory, you get the point.
And it's a travesty of justice.
No one crafted the law expecting an 18-year-old and 17-year-old with only a few months of each other's birthday to... No one believed that should be a crime.
In fact, in some states, it's three years, meaning an 18-year-old can be dating a 15-year-old.
Or a 19-year-old and a 16-year-old, or a 20-year-old and a 17-year-old, and once you're 18, it's off to the races.
But exemptions are added to the law after the fact.
The law will say something specific.
What the defense, I'm sorry, what the prosecutor is trying to do is instruct the jury to ignore the relevant portion of the law.
The judge is not having it.
Shirafisa, the defense, said, I argue the hunting language is irrelevant.
Simply says there is an exception, period.
Our client qualifies for that exception.
And the judge said, it does say that.
This is why I think it's annoying when the left is like, the judge is biased.
If the judge was biased, he literally agrees with the defense, the gun charge should be thrown out, and then doesn't throw it out.
He's going to give it to the jury.
Krauss, the prosecutor, says the title of the statute says person under 18.
And even then the judge says the rubric title is not part of the statute.
I don't even know why I have to keep saying it over and over again, but I think this is very, very significant.
At this point, it should be clear to everyone from the get-go, there's an exception in the law so that a 16 and 17-year-old can bear a rifle on their own.
Why?
Because a 16 or 17-year-old can go about defending themselves and their property, or hunting, or going to the range.
And not only that, Kyle Rittenhouse testified that the reason he believed he was legally allowed to possess the rifle in Wisconsin Not purchase, but possess, was because police told them that.
Now, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.
But I certainly think, at this point, the judge should have just tossed it out.
You're telling me the reason you had the rifle is because you were told by officers you were allowed to.
Yes.
And when you showed up to this night in question, the police said, hi, thanks for being here.
Yes.
Every step of the way.
And a strict reading of the law says, as someone who is 17, you are It specifically says the law does not apply to you!
That's a question of law for the judge or question of fact for the jury.
It's not definitive.
Although I think it's fair to say it is definitive, I'm saying the judge did not say as such, and still won't give it up.
From Legal Insurrection, in an article titled, The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse.
First, he writes, self-defense applies to Kyle's most serious criminal charges.
The primary legal defense raised by Kyle is self-defense.
That legal defense of self-defense is applicable directly to the charge of first-degree intentional homicide of Anthony Huber, count three of the criminal complaint against Rittenhouse with a mandatory life sentence, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide of Gage Grosskreutz.
The legal defense of self-defense is also applicable, albeit indirectly, to the charge of first-degree reckless homicide of Joseph Rosenbaum, count 1, 60 years, and first-degree reckless endangering of unknown male jump-kick man, in that a justified use of force against an intended target is by law necessary and reasonable, and therefore not reckless, and both of those men were actively attacking Rittenhouse and therefore presumably intended targets of his use of force.
Right now, What we're talking about, the bigger picture here, is the jury instructions.
Because the question of law is for the judge.
He then tells the jury, if the law states these provisions, read them, then you must determine whether or not the burden of proof has been met by the state.
And if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt he's guilty, then you can choose guilty or not guilty.
If the jury is given instructions which include a provision that says if you are 16 or 17, it doesn't apply to you effectively, then the jury has to come back with a not guilty verdict.
Let's read some more.
He says, and also I'll clarify too, there were arguments as to the lesser included charges.
So they're saying, okay, if it's not a first degree murder, is it a second?
If it's not first degree reckless homicide, is it second degree or first degree reckless endangerment?
The crazy thing about this, because the judge is not biased, The judge was like up for the jury to decide and he's basically saying that if someone attacks you and you have a gun to defend yourself and you fire you are being you you are potentially reckless because you fired your gun without checking your surroundings.
I think that's insane.
The defense argued if you are acting in self-defense you do not create a reckless circumstance and they're trying to argue attempted reckless endangerment and and the defense was like how can you attempt to be reckless?
Anyway, let's keep reading about the self-defense.
They say, it's somewhat more ambiguous to what extent the legal defense of self-defense covers the charge of first-degree reckless endangering with respect to journalist Richard McGuinness, good for 12 years, who was somewhat behind Rosenbaum and arguably endangered by the gunfire.
Of course, criminal recklessness requires the risk created be an unjustified risk.
A justified risk is not sufficient.
In which case, Rittenhouse wasn't trying to hurt Ritchie McGinnis.
Ritchie McGinnis did not fear Kyle Rittenhouse and did not flee.
Kyle Rittenhouse fired only to stop the threat before him.
He was justified in his use of force.
I do not believe, and I'm friends with Ritchie, He's a good dude, and I do not believe he was intentionally put in danger.
I'm glad he's okay.
But he clearly wasn't scared of Kyle, because he knew Kyle was being attacked.
He goes on to say, the relevant question in the case of McGuinness, reckless endangerment charge, will be whether the risk created towards McGuinness was unjustified and therefore reckless.
We get it.
Ambiguous gun charge and treacherous jury instruction.
Check it out.
He says, this still leaves one charge.
Count six, the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
This is a mere misdemeanor charge and is punishable by up to nine months in jail.
The gun charge has indeed become a sticky wicket, largely because of the alleged ambiguity created by the Wisconsin legislature in drafting the statute, by the failure of the relevant Wisconsin criminal jury instructions to accurately reflect the plain statutory language, and by the fecklessness of the prosecution in the case.
I will pause here and say, In terms of this right now, initially it seemed that the judge was only going to allow jury instructions on the 2A, the standard statutory reading, and not include the exemptions.
It now appears the judge said he's going to give the defense's version of the jury instructions, which will include the exemptions and likely result in an acquittal.
Complicated, not a lawyer, and I may be getting this wrong, but based on everything I've read and what I've been hearing from other lawyers and what the judge himself said, it seems like he's inclined to defend the defense.
Perhaps over the weekend, he will issue his hard ruling and provide that to the defense for their arguments on Monday.
He says, because of Kyle's claim of self-defense, Compelling against the felony charges against him is irrelevant because of Kyle's claim of self-defense is irrelevant as a defense to this particular misdemeanor charge.
There is no self-defense justification for willfully violating a gun possession law.
Section 2A, which is what the defense wants to be read strictly with nothing else, Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it's pretty much an open-and-shut conviction.
He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin laws a dangerous weapon.
Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted Specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, and that's why it's important.
Let me see if I can pull up this tweet, where the judge says, I'm looking for it, looking for it, looking for it.
The judge said, my intent is to submit what defense submitted.
Their gun charge, jury instruction, state must prove under 18, and the dangerous weapon was a rifle, shotgun, etc, etc.
Andrew Branca says, very confusing, but it sounds like what he's saying is the defense's version will be given to the jury and thus the judge agrees with the defense.
Check it out.
Here's what he says.
The simplicity of construction, defining for the jury elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to find a verdict of guilt.
The defendant possessed an object.
The object was a dangerous weapon.
These are both true.
The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time he she allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.
All of those are true.
He says, again, if that's the entire analysis, Kyle's guilty.
However, that is not the entire legal analysis.
There's more.
It is found later in the same statute in paragraph 3c.
It says, this section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or shotgun If the person is not in compliance with SS 29304 and 29593.
So unless Kyle was not in compliance, that is, violating these provisions, the gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all.
And the judge seems to agree.
So what are these provisions?
He says, the second of those, 29-593, sets out the conditions that must be met to be
certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions, the state
correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditions, and therefore they
argue he's not in compliance. The first defense counter-argument here could be that 29-593
applies to hunting activities and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities.
Therefore, it won't apply to his circumstances.
In fact, the defense literally said, Judge, we concede on all the hunting charges.
But, here's where it's important.
He says, perhaps a stronger counter-argument is the plain reading of 3C says it applies only if the person is not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.
It does not read or.
That means both must be in violation.
So even if Kyle can be said to be not in compliance with the hunting provision, was he also not in compliance with the other provision?
In 29-304, we see that it is all to a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and the use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
Wait a minute.
How can Kyle not be in compliance with the statute that only applies to a person under 16?
He was, after all, 17.
Well, that's precisely the position of the defense.
Basically, you must be in violation of the first one, hunting, and the second one, under 16.
It's not entirely clear, but I think I can reasonably determine, and I think a fair person would.
What the legislature was trying to say is, if you're 16 or 17, you can bear a rifle.
If you're under the age of 16, hunting, under supervision, you can have a weapon.
Otherwise, you can't have a weapon under these specific ages.
So, if you're not in violation... I'll put it this way.
If you are 15 years old and you are not hunting, you are now... I'm confusing myself on this one.
To put it simply, you can't be not in compliance if he is exempt from... He cannot be in compliance with SS-29304.
If he cannot be in compliance with 29304, he is exempt from 948.6A2.
he is exempt from 948.682. The judge agreed. Now, I'll be fair.
I'm I think the law makes no sense.
I think it was written poorly.
I think it was written very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very poorly.
And I think the general assessment is that if you're 16 or 17, you can have a long gun, and the police even seem to think so.
And that's what Kyle Rittenhouse testified to.
Now, just because a cop says it's legal doesn't mean it is.
But I think it would be a travesty of justice for the law to read as it is and for that to be used to criminally prosecute Kyle Rittenhouse, who was 17.
I don't think it's relevant for the most part to the case.
I think we're talking about the loss of life and self-defense.
So, you have to be in violation of both of these provisions.
Meaning, if you are hunting, but under the age of 16, you are fine.
If you are not hunting, And you are under the age of 16.
You have now violated both provisions, and it is a crime.
If you are not hunting, and you are over the age of 15, 16 or 17, 18 or whatever, you are not in violation of both provisions, which means you are exempt if you are hunting and young, Or you are not hunting, but at least 16 or 17.
I think it's actually pretty easy to understand.
I've had many people message me saying that up in Wisconsin, they'd go hunting when they were 12.
And that's it.
You are not in violation of both.
Therefore, you are exempt.
They could have written the law better, but I think this is a major win for Kyle Rittenhouse.
