S5228 - MSNBC BANNED From Rittenhouse Trial After Police Catch Them Trying To Expose Jurors Identities.
MSNBC BANNED From Rittenhouse Trial After Police Catch Them Trying To Expose Jurors Identities. Kyle Rittenhouse is currently awaiting a verdict but in the meantime antifa and blm protesters are outside the court.
The jurors bus is blacked out so they cant see the protests and leftists are actively trying to expose their identities
A fair trial is gone.
Judge Schroeder must declare a mistrial with prejudice now
#Rittenhouse
#BLMRiots
#RittenhouseTrial
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 18th, 2021, and our first story.
MSNBC has been caught trying to expose the identities of the jurors.
The judge is furious, saying this is extreme, and he's barred MSNBC from the building.
The corporate press was actively trying to interfere in the trial and could have potentially caused a mistrial, giving the state another opportunity, but we don't know exactly why or how this is happening.
In our next story, new evidence suggests that the prosecution was actively manipulating evidence, but worse than most people realize.
The editing software found on the prosecution's computer suggests that they were cropping and compressing video to weaken the defense's position and provide them with a fake version of evidence.
In our last story, the script supervisor on the Alec Baldwin movie set says he intentionally cocked the gun and pulled the trigger, firing the bullet that killed Helena Hutchins.
Dare I say, I was right.
And before we get started, leave us a good review, give us five stars, share the show with your friends, it really helps.
Now, let's get into that first story.
By the time you watch this, there may have already been a verdict, but we have a major breaking story.
MSNBC has been barred from the building.
They will not be allowed into the building itself, not just the courtroom, the entire building, after a reporter was caught trying to expose the identities of the jurors.
The judge named names.
Now, at first, when this report came out, I assumed maybe this was Antifa, some far leftist, who was trying to expose the jurors because this happened before.
About a week ago, the judge said someone was at the bus pickup trying to photograph or film- I believe they were filming the jurors.
The police, the bailiff, were instructed to have them delete the footage.
The judge said that would suffice and we won't allow it to happen again.
It happened again!
This time we now know it was MSNBC, here, trying to interfere in the Rittenhouse trial.
Two people were named.
James Morrison, a reporter, now another reporter on Court TV, has confirmed he knows this individual.
Says he was just doing his job, trying to do interviews with the jurors post-verdict.
I have gone through the story so far.
buy on by the judge. She has since deleted all of her social media accounts, her her LinkedIn
accounts. Of course, all of this was archived. I have gone through the story so far. I have I have
fact checked to the best of my ability, and I can say that definitively. But my opinion
is that MSNBC was actively trying to interfere in the trial and destabilize it.
I do not believe this was just about we want to interview jurors.
I believe they want to intimidate jurors.
What you need to understand about MSNBC is that they're only airing the prosecution side.
For the most part, they've been running fake stories.
They ran a video where they claim it did a host claim.
That Gage Grosskreutz testified he had his hands up when Rittenhouse fired upon him, but in fact the viral video shows Gage Grosskreutz told the defense that it was only after he pointed the weapon at Rittenhouse that he was fired upon.
Now perhaps there is some gap in testimony there, but at the very least it warrants a correction, which did not occur.
It appears to me that MSNBC, and most of you probably already know this, is biased.
An attempting to direct an outcome in this trial.
By having a reporter go and do this, that could trigger a mistrial.
Things aren't going too well for the prosecution.
Now, the other day, we had a conversation that the length of the deliberation so far is potentially bad news for the defense because it could mean a hung jury.
But Viva Frye, lawyer, says it appears this might actually mean they have not, the state has not met its burden on guilt.
Therefore, It's good news for the defense.
And we don't know for sure.
But the defense has requested a mistrial without prejudice.
They want another go at this.
And that says to me they actually may be worried.
But what we're worried about, what may happen, what the verdict may be.
But this.
Donald Trump said the corporate press was the enemy of the people.
And a lot of people said, hey, that's a little rough, you know.
And I agreed.
I said, calm down.
But this is shocking.
This may be rogue elements within MSNBC, and I think it's probably fair to point out there's no high-ranking individual instructing MSNBC to destabilize, disrupt, and interfere in the Rittenhouse trial, but these two individuals did.
This woman did.
Well, I should say, it appears as such by the statements of the judge and the police investigation, that's what we know so far.
We don't know the full details yet.
Maybe they'll come out with some grandiose excuse as to how this occurred.
But the police found a reporter following the jury bus.
Pulled him over.
He blew a red light.
This story is crazy.
And I'm gonna walk you through it.
I'm going to be careful.
I don't want to expose too much about the identities of these individuals.
Simply, their names have already been released by the judge and are included in all these news reports.
I'm not going to pull up their social media, but I have fact-checked it and can confirm that these individuals exist, at least to the best of my understanding.
And there's also conflict happening outside of the courthouse.
This is where I think we're screwed, my friends.
First, you all know that there's an ongoing crisis with the defense, I'm sorry, the prosecution fabricating, manipulating evidence.
I should say manipulating evidence.
They fabricated, they made this compressed cropped version to throw the defense off.
But we also now know that the jury bus had to be covered up because the jurors are being driven through the protests.
I don't know what the verdict will be.
By the time this video is published, there may be a verdict, but let's just get into the news and talk about what MSNBC did.
Now, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, help support our work.
Your membership helps fund all of the journalists that we have on staff.
Journalists need to be paid, and it's not cheap.
It's not cheap, especially if you want real talent.
And we want to hire two more journalists.
Become a member, and that's what we will do.
Now, we're going to do it anyway, to be completely honest, but please become a member and help us just grow and expand.
You'll get access to our members-only segments from all of our shows, notably the Tim Castile podcast, which is a massive, massive library of all of these different people you know and love, talking behind the scenes, uncensored, about many ideas.
Don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends.
Let's get in to the insanity.
MSNBC barred from Rittenhouse trial after producer caught following jury van.
This is from my state line dot com.
Reporting, Kenosha, Wisconsin, MSNBC has been barred from the courtroom in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial after a producer was stopped by police for following a van used to transport the jury.
MSNBC News producer James Morrison was allegedly stopped by the police Thursday morning after running a stoplight while attempting to follow a van used to bring jury members to the courtroom.
Kenosha police said Morrison was, quote, trying to photograph jurors.
He was charged with several traffic violations, police said.
Judge Bruce Schroeder said the jury van is equipped with blacked-out windows, so the jury is prevented from being exposed to anything from one side or the other while being brought to the courthouse.
I have instructed that no one from MSNBC News will be permitted in this building for the duration of the trial, Schroeder said.
This is a very serious matter.
I don't know what the ultimate truth of it is.
But someone following a jury bust is an extremely serious matter and will be referred to the proper authorities for further action.
Schroeder, declare a mistrial with prejudice for the love of all that is holy.
This has gone beyond what a fair trial is supposed to be.
The prosecution Questioning the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant on the stand in front of the jury.
Even you said it was a grave constitutional violation.
Bringing up evidence that you said was not allowed in court.
And now we know, at the very least, provided altered, low-resolution video to the defense.
Not providing the full high-res, uncropped version of the drone video, that you can argue is withholding evidence, but I would argue, based on the fact that ADA Krause, on his laptop, it appears to show, he has two different editing software.
One for cropping video and one for transcoding and for compressing video.
I believe this shows, a reasonable person could say, Krauss edited down the video and sent a new rendered version to the defense so that they could not form an argument against the prosecution.
And it was only because the defense showed the judge the video, not realizing it was different.
And then this is really interesting, because Binger made a point like, isn't ours clearer than this?
And Krauss says our version is clearer.
He then said, no, no, no, it's just playing weird.
Attorney Wisco said, it doesn't work that way.
And that's when the defense realized the prosecution had sent them manipulated evidence.
Now we have MSNBC trying to photograph the jurors and you know it.
We have more breaking news.
Apparently, earlier...
The prosecution was in the judge's chambers.
We don't know what's going to happen.
But there is a strong possibility, I would argue, that the judge, who has already said he's going to wait for the verdict from the jury.
I believe the judge has decided he's going to wait to see what the jurors have to say, because if they say not guilty, then the motions for dismissal are moot.
But if the jury comes back and says we're hung, meaning we can't agree, or that he's guilty, I believe the judge at this point now will intervene, but let me just tell you, the state of our country, MSNBC, a massive corporate entity, caught trying to expose the jurors in possibly the highest profile case of our generation.
I guess you can argue that our generation would be OJ, maybe that was bigger, but this is serious.
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.
I heard the reporter discussing this, but Matt Christensen says, Reporter on Court TV is saying he knows this Morrison dude on MSNBC.
Implied confirmation of the bus following story.
Court TV reporter says he can't think of a nicer guy who is just doing his job, instructed by someone higher up.
Says it happens all the time and has for decades.
Says the guy was trying to book jurors for interviews post-verdict.
Maybe.
This man, according to the judge, said that he was working at the behest of a producer named Irene Bayan.
Upon looking at the LinkedIn profile of Irene Bayan, she is a booking producer for MSN- for NBC News.
Probably overlapping with MSNBC.
Perhaps.
I don't think so.
I don't believe it.
It may be the case.
You know, she is a booking producer.
This guy's a reporter, though.
He's a reporter.
He's not a booking agent.
She's the producer.
Why was he following the jury bus and he blew a stoplight to try and keep up with them?
Why did the police say they believed he was trying to photograph them?
Because what likely was happening is, I think this guy may be using it as an excuse.
Oh yeah, the booking producer.
The cultists Are in the institutions.
The call is coming from inside the house.
There may be some activists on the jury.
There are definitely activists at MSNBC.
I mean, the whole thing is a joke.
So you're not going to come to me and convince me that this was just all a big misunderstanding.
You want to book the jurors.
You wait until the verdict comes in and the trial's over.
And then you can try and see if you can get some of the jurors.
But for now, interfering with the jury bus when it already happened before, and the judge said it would be prevented from happening again?
These are criminal actors.
In my opinion, criminal.
And I will stress, I will stress, on November 9th, let me mute this, on November 9th, Rittenhouse judge says person caught filming jurors orders deletion along with new procedures.
The new procedures didn't work.
But you mean to tell me that these reporters didn't know about this?
Of course they did.
They knew, and they were still actively trying to get information to expose those jurors.
Take a look at this from the Kenosha Police.
They say, A person who is alleging to be affiliated with a national media outlet was briefly taken into custody and issued several traffic-related citations.
Police suspect this person was trying to photograph jurors.
This incident is being investigated much further.
There was no breach of security regarding the jury, nor were there any photographs obtained.
This investigation remains active and open.
No further information.
Okay.
Again, by now, there may be a verdict.
I don't know.
It's a nerve-wracking news cycle.
You know, I'm sitting here with the live stream going, with active commentary across the board, because it could come in at any minute, but I produce on a schedule, and so I do the best I can.
But this is something else, beyond just what the verdict may be.
This is a corporate press entity that we know lies, cheats, and steals.
And now they're actively trying to interfere in our elections.
You got me freaked out.
Congratulations, MSNBC.
This is...
Man, you know I watched, we saw that, you guys saw that rant from me when the FBI raided James O'Keefe and was alleged to have then leaked their privileged legal communications, communications of their lawyers to the New York Times.
That was scary stuff.
We know that federal law enforcement is going after opposition journalists under highly suspicious means.
Even the ACLU is calling it out.
Now, MSNBC taking this action.
I'm not going to pretend that it was from the president of MSNBC or the CEO, but it just goes to show the corruption in these institutions.
And I think it goes to show the corruption within our country and the struggle that we are now facing.
I've got a lot more for you as well, though.
We've got this tweet from this thread from Andrew Havrinek, giving us some context.
Now, this is interesting.
He talks about the motion to dismiss, but I want to go to... I'm sorry, that's the motion to dismiss.
I want to go to what he was talking about with the individual who came out and was filming the jurors.
Okay, so Andrew says, according to the court TV engineer who has been running the feeds down in the media room, a man outside was pretending to be with MSNBC and NBC News.
That person is now a guest of the county.
Turns out that wasn't the case.
Now, early on we heard this, and it sounded like a far leftist and extremist was trying to sneak in.
I tweeted, I deleted the tweet because I didn't know for sure.
I didn't know what this meant.
Now we know.
It was MSNBC.
Now, we do have some information that I want to read from Andrew on the mistrial, but I want to talk, I do want to talk a lot about, you know, what's going on.
This is from Andrew, the same individual.
He says prosecutors said the jury only saw one version of the drone video.
He says the motion and a motion for a mistrial with prejudice, the motion for a mistrial,
still loom over this case as we await a jury verdict. If the jury reaches a not
guilty verdict across the board, these motions are moot.
This freaks me out.
The prosecution has committed grave constitutional violations.
You can see right over here MSNBC is trending.
The prosecutor has committed grave constitutional violations.
That's a quote from the judge.
MSNBC has directly interfered and been banned from the court.
I believe the judge should make that motion now and let the American people know that if the extremists interfere and try to take away our fair trials, he will not allow it.
By letting the jury come to a verdict, it will only get worse.
If the jury comes back and says not guilty, he says, eh, moot point.
Basically saying all this malfeasance didn't matter.
Is there going to be any repercussion for this?
If the jury comes back and says guilty, and then he says, no, no, mistrial with prejudice, the left will say the judge interfered.
He is biased and he is evil.
And then we will get more chaos.
Take a look at this.
I know many of you probably saw this story, but this is the most important context as it pertains to what MSNBC did, because I believe a reasonable person would conclude, following the story from Fox News about the person filming the jurors, MSNBC was acting with malice.
On November 9th, Fox News reported the Wisconsin judge overseeing the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse announced Tuesday that deputies had caught someone recording video of the jurors earlier in the day and would be taking new steps to ensure the incident did not happen again, in addition to ordering the person to delete the images.
The jury entered the Kenosha County courtroom on Tuesday morning and was greeted by judge Bruce Schroeder, who referenced the incident at the bus pickup this morning before the panel of jurors arrived.
Schroeder had revealed that someone was spotted filming the group.
I've been assured that.
The video, which had been taken, has been deleted, Schroeder told the jury, and new procedures are being instituted so that something like that should not reoccur.
Well, technically, he's correct.
They caught the guy before he filmed these jurors.
But then, I have to wonder, was the individual who filmed the jurors the same guy?
Was it MSNBC trying to expose the identities of the jurors, knowing it would trigger a collapse, a destabilization in this trial?
Dark times ahead indeed.
But let me stress, the only reason these insane actions are even happening is because they're scared.
The establishment, the powerful political elites, the corrupt cult members, the woke, they are scared.
They know they're gonna lose, so they have no choice but to just try and disrupt it to an extreme degree.
So, I have this tweet from Ian Miles Chong.
Is there any confirmation on this?
I immediately searched for the social media of the individual and the judge named Irene Bayan.
I found the account.
I then saw that it was deleted.
I believe it was her.
I also have, uh, I do have her LinkedIn pulled up.
I'm not going to show it.
Because I don't want to show her private details.
Her name was released by the judge.
But she does work for NBC News, booking producer, and she has been purging all of her socials.
This is where it gets worse.
From the Daily Mail.
Two arrested during violent clashes outside Kenosha court after Rittenhouse jury is sent home for a second night.
Defense calls for mistrial over drone footage that was linchpin in prosecution case.
Two people were arrested.
Fights were breaking out.
People are bullhorning.
Jack Posobiec.
The left doesn't like him.
He is a commentator and reporter, used to work in intelligence, and he tweeted that a U.S.
marshal said that there are two jurors who are scared of the backlash who are hanging up the jury who are holding it.
A lot of people said there's no marshals in there, so that's clearly wrong.
But you know, I take a look at the greater context and I think it's plausible at the very least.
I don't know if Jack has a good source, and one source typically isn't good enough for confirmation as far as I'm concerned, but take it with a grain of salt.
The judge said, That the bus windows are blacked out so that the jury won't be exposed to anything from one side or the other.
That means the jury is driving through the protests.
They certainly know why the windows are blacked out.
They certainly know what's going on.
They've certainly heard the bullhorning.
They know that there are violent, angry people outside.
People who just burned down their town not but a year ago.
The people in question that they heard all the testimony on.
Imagine.
Sitting in a jury trial.
And the state and the defense come out and show you video of people burning down your city.
And they tell you in great detail how it went down.
And the only question you're there to answer is whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in self-defense or not.
But you certainly know it's undisputed these people were violent, had hurt others, and, dare I say, there's a question of whether or not they would kill a 17-year-old.
And then you learn those people are standing outside the courthouse, many of whom traveled across state lines.
And you expect these jurors to come back and give you a verdict of not guilty?
They are sweating bullets.
The jury is probably freaked out and scared.
And now MSNBC is barred because they were trying to expose their identities.
These cult members are evil.
It's beyond evil.
It is corrupt.
The arrests.
You think the jury doesn't know about this?
They're hearing this stuff.
They're being shuffled into a court building with protests outside where people are getting arrested.
There's some good news here.
Viva Fry says, The fact that the jury has now entered day three of deliberations is the most undeniable evidence yet that the prosecution has not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I completely agree.
The jury need only five minutes to answer whether or not there was self-defense.
Let's be reasonable, a couple hours.
Now, the judge said if they come back and say this was not self-defense, they say that the intentional homicide is confirmed, then what happens is they go into deliberations.
They say it's not self-defense, and they're done.
There's no need to go over lesser charges, for the most part, if they're like, he wasn't defending himself.
They come right back out.
Takes but a matter of minutes, I suppose.
Now, if it is self-defense, they gotta go through all the lesser-includeds.
Okay, if it was an intentional homicide, was it reckless endangerment, blah blah blah.
And even then, they start to consider self-defense.
I actually don't- I don't necessarily agree with Viva.
He's a lawyer, but he is in Canada.
Mike Cernovich the other day said that he thinks it's indicative of a potential hung jury, and I believe that makes the most sense.
If it was clear self-defense, they'd come out and say, look, the kid was defending himself, case dismissed.
If it was not clear self-defense, they'd come out and say, he killed those people, lock him up.
Instead, what we're getting is day three of deliberations.
No, I think what's happening is there are people in there saying, please, they're gonna riot, they're gonna burn my home down!
That's what I think is happening.
I don't know for sure.
I can't tell you, but I can tell you this.
National Guard troops outside Kenosha are seen swinging batons and training with shields in preparation for violent protests as the world awaits a verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial.
The judge instructs the jury every day.
Okay, we're breaking for the evening.
Don't discuss the trial or the facts with anyone, even your fellow jurors.
Avoid all news reports and go home and we'll see you in the morning!
What do you think happens when those jurors leave on a bus with blacked-out windows as people scream outside the millimeter-thick steel of their bus?
You think they're sitting there going like, I have no idea what's happening.
This is fine.
Or do you think they're saying it is not discussing the trial to point out violent rioters are threatening our lives?
Do you think when the jurors go home and they go to their families, they don't discuss this?
Schroeder, I feel, is a good judge.
He's done good.
He's done well.
And I mean good morally, too.
He's done good morally, ethically, and he's done fine as a judge with a question of law, but boy, is he weak when it comes to what is happening all around us.
Oh, don't discuss the trial!
How could they not?
There are violent rioters coming to your town.
The National Guard is in the outskirts.
These people can't even go to the store to buy milk without seeing National Guard with shields, probably.
Or at least some of them.
We're screwed.
This is politics.
This is political.
We're not going to have a fair trial because there is an active conflict in this country.
And that means Kyle Rittenhouse... You know what's really on trial?
What's on trial right now is your right to defend your community.
Now Kyle Rittenhouse was 17.
He could only have a rifle or a shotgun.
He shouldn't have been out there.
But you know what?
The police weren't.
There were police nearby doing nothing, just telling everyone to back off, keeping a perimeter, as rioters for several days burned down a city.
Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial, sure.
But what's really on trial is, will you be allowed to defend your community when the extremists show up?
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 I want you to think about the future that we head to if the jurors lack the strength to say not guilty.
Or the judge lacks the strength to say mistrial with prejudice.
The ideologue left, now in extreme political power as they expand.
I'm not saying they're going to win, I'm just saying imagine the scenario.
And a group of their culture police, their religious enforcers, show up to your home, telling you that one thing or another you said was offensive on the internet, and you're gonna be arrested.
And you're gonna be sent indefinitely to the Gulag.
Or 12 years hard labor.
I'm being hyperbolic.
Bear with me.
Well, you'll know, no matter what I do, if I plead my innocence, if I state my case, I'll lose.
If I try to resist, I'll lose.
Because my neighbor won't stand up for me.
My friends won't stand up for me.
They're all too worried about making sure their kids have food.
And they're just going to comply.
Right now we're talking about violent rioters who went to a small town and burned down buildings.
And this was part of a greater movement throughout the year, just mass rioting for Black Lives Matter, that resulted in 25 to 32 dead, depending on which metric you use, and it's horrifying.
And now these people are being told that after all the death and destruction of Black Lives Matter, it is Kyle Rittenhouse who is at fault.
We've all seen the videos of the people who have been brutalized.
Did you see the video out of Seattle?
Where a guy is running, they knock him down and punt his head.
There's another video where a guy runs around with a sword.
Not a good idea either, but he certainly decided he's not going to drop to his knees in front of these people and they brutalize him.
beating him and leaving him twisted and writhing on the ground.
Well, I shouldn't say writhing, completely unconscious.
Kyle Rittenhouse went out there and said, I'm going to provide aid to these people, but I'm not going to be a victim.
And he was in the long run.
He was still, as you know, he was attacked and everything.
With the National Guard being deployed and being out standing there, There's no question that the families of the jurors, the friends of the jurors, the old friends who live far away have discussed this with them.
And they may not tell a judge that they did, but you'd have to be naive to think they wouldn't.
They say the National Guard troops are preparing for action.
60 miles north of Kenosha as the world awaits for the Virgin and the Cow Ritten House double murder case.
So I'll issue a correction.
The jurors aren't seeing the National Guard because the National Guard is up doing training.
But their friends and family likely are.
And they're probably asking about it.
And you know what happens?
He says don't discuss the trial, the evidence.
Is rioting the trial?
No.
So juror comes home.
Seven women on that jury, I believe.
And there's a husband.
And he says, Honey, they will come for us.
I don't care about Kyle Rittenhouse.
I care about you.
I care about little Timothy over there!
Their son.
Yeah, John Oliver loves using my name for his bits, whatever.
You get the point.
People are going to say I care more about my kid and I care more about my wife than I care about you getting this kid not guilty.
I agree with Michael Malice when he said the average American cares more about safety than freedom.
I've seen it.
How many people were like, I'll comply with whatever the government says?
And how many people have said to me, Tim, I have children!
And if I stand up and speak out, my kids won't have food!
Alright, you're right, but at least they'll have food, for now, until they go to the Gulag.
And it's funny because I'm only somewhat kidding.
I don't know what they'll call it.
Maybe not a gulag.
But what'll end up happening is, as we're seeing now with food shortages, labor shortages, businesses collapsing, riots in the streets... Yeah, sure.
Today your kid can have their cheeseburger because you shut up and backed down and hid.
And the power that you ceded to the extremists will one day come and take what's left of your child's life.
Because you decided that...
You decided that a society in which the trees are chopped down, eventually, is better, for now, because at least there's shade.
They say a society grows great when men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit beneath.
I remember when I was riding my bike across the Manhattan Bridge in New York and I thought to myself, I did nothing to make this bridge happen.
Nothing.
I was born into a world where it was already there.
And now I can freely travel between Brooklyn and Manhattan.
How amazing is that?
That there were people who came before me who said, I will plant a tree whose shade I know I will never sit beneath.
Today, most people are saying, look, we got a tree.
Shut up and sit beneath it before things get bad.
And you know what it is?
It's the children of those who planted those trees.
You see, the people who knew I had to, I have to invest in the future and fight for what is right, created an environment in which we were all born amidst beautiful shade and resources and luxury.
And now we're all spoiled and scared to lose it.
And we say, my child basks in the shade of this tree.
If I speak up, maybe they'll come and chop this tree down, as they actively chop down the forest.
It is time to plant the seeds of a tree whose shade you know you will never sit beneath.
It is time to stand up for yourself.
Speak out.
Vote these people out.
Vote at the local level.
Primary the Republicans.
Primary the Democrats.
Force that change.
Now, you vote Democrat, fine, I wouldn't.
Libertarian Party, the Free State Project, I don't know.
I don't.
But I believe what the Free State Project has done has shown us not only are they winning up in New Hampshire, seriously are they winning, but it's possible everywhere else.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Glenn Youngkin winning in Virginia was going to save the country because he's not that great.
But you can see the sentiment changing in people, and our culture is shifting.
Regular Americans are saying no to this.
They're standing up.
They're standing up to the lies of the corporate press, and the lies of the Democratic establishment, and the neocons, formerly of the Republican Party, who joined them.
And they're saying no to the established Republicans, and they're primarying them and getting populists in.
I don't know what the verdict will be, but it's coming soon.
And maybe the verdict will be a colloquial verdict, in that the judge says mistrial with prejudice.
We'll see.
Tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
We will be live with more updates and we'll talk about this with the group.
So I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out and we will see you all tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern.
Chaos in the courtroom in the Rittenhouse case.
The prosecution, the judge, the defense all arguing about manipulated evidence and new evidence has emerged that the prosecution intentionally sabotaged the evidence they gave to the defense so the defense would not be able to muster up an argument against provocation.
It is so bad that the judge has even stated he wants the prosecutors on the stand under oath to explain how this happened.
Now, I don't know if that will happen, but I'll tell you how bad it is.
The defense has requested a mistrial.
Now, you may be saying, Tim, I thought they did that already.
They wanted this dismissed and never to be brought up again.
It's gotten so bad that the defense has now verbally requested the judge simply declare a mistrial and we will have another trial later.
The judge says to the prosecutor that there, he warned them, there would be a day of reckoning over this video, but He's gonna wait to see what the jury says.
We're going on day three of deliberations.
So it's not looking good for the defense.
That's a sad reality for all of you who support Kyle Rittenhouse.
There's a variety... We don't know exactly why.
We don't know exactly why they're being held up this way.
It could be that the rumors are true.
That ten of the jurors are like, this is clearly self-defense, but there's two holdouts saying, I will not face the backlash.
And thus, they're jammed up.
Why?
They came back out and said, we want to watch the drone video again.
Because it seems like there may be a couple people saying, no, no, he provoked, he provoked.
The jury could come out, hand the judge their verdict.
Hung jury seems likely at this point.
And the judge could just say, you know what?
Mistrial with prejudice.
Go home, kid.
End of story.
There's a viral tweet where you've got Kyle Rittenhouse standing behind the judge as they watch a video.
It was this woman, she tweeted this.
She said, I've never seen a murder trial where the alleged murderer is standing beside the judge unhandcuffed.
That's an interesting point.
I don't think it's definitive of every single murder trial, but it is interesting.
And as I've stated it before, if a riot breaks out, and ADA Binger and Krause are outside, they will run to Kyle Rittenhouse for help, and you know it.
And so do they.
But there's evidence, my friends.
You see, on day 10, we have this video from PBS.
And I'll go through this in greater detail.
This is the YouTube video.
You can see the URL is highlighted up top.
This is from November 15th.
You can see that on Krause's desktop, he has two programs, FormatFactory and Handbrake.
I find that really interesting.
FormatFactory and Handbrake.
It's two different versions of the same video transcoding software.
What does this software do?
Well, it can convert video files.
It can take, say, a 1980 video and convert it to a 480 video.
It's really interesting, but there's also more evidence to consider in the manipulation of what the state has done, and please, Judge Schroeder, please declare a mistrial with prejudice.
You cannot let the state get away with this.
The state has presented something rather interesting.
The resolution of the drone video itself is questionable, and I thought this too, but not enough to bring up.
The drone video is an oblong format that doesn't exist.
You know, it's 1980x1080 or whatever, right?
Or was it 1920x1080?
Maybe I'm getting the numbers wrong.
The point is, you know the format, you know, when you open your computer screen and it tells you what things, you know, the aspect ratio.
The drone footage is like 1920x814.
Wait a minute.
How do you get that weird resolution?
It's like a weird oblong...
Interesting.
It appears the original video was cropped, and the true source material exists somewhere else.
It may have been cropped because they were removing Fox News' branding or graphics.
If that's the case, this is manipulated evidence from the start.
We must have a mistrial with prejudice.
The evidence is there.
Now, a lot of people have said, you know, initially it was, they had, they claimed, like, we had the high-res video, Some people, Jack Posobiec tweeted, it was texted to the defense that would compress it, but it wouldn't change.
Why?
The file name would be different.
But let's read.
Let's read from Andrew Branca.
Rittenhouse trial mayhem.
Courtroom fights over videos and mistrial as jury deliberates.
Look at this.
Rittenhouse defense makes a third motion for a mistrial based on concealment of high drone video.
The defense would have no way of knowing that they were not provided real evidence.
The judge said a day of reckoning will come.
You better not just mistrial this.
A mistrial is still good for the defense in this capacity.
Normally it's not great, but it seems like the defense has realized, after looking at a day of deliberations, a potential hung jury, or holdouts, If you're going to get a hung jury, get the mistrial.
Get the mistrial.
Take that.
It's not a win per se, but it's better than a hung jury.
It's them saying that they had a mistrial because of the prosecution's screw-ups.
It's better than nothing.
They'll get another chance at this.
They know the state's case, they know the state's witnesses, and they know the state's weaknesses.
The state can say the same of the defense, but the defense has a bit of an advantage in that capacity.
Judge must rule mistrial with prejudice.
Do not let prosecutors get away with this.
Hey, but the judge and the prosecutor are both the state, so we'll be lucky if that's the case.
Bronca says, the jury deliberations take place in private, of course, so we can only speculate as to what discussions are taking place among the 12 jurors.
That doesn't mean the day was uneventful, however.
The newest request for a mistrial is based primarily on the undisputed fact that the prosecution had provided a copy of drone video to the defense that was 116th the resolution of the version that would be actually shown to the jury.
With no way to know the high-resolution version existed, the defense now tells the court they would have shaped their legal arguments and prepared their client to testify different than they did only with the low-resolution version in possession.
Fact.
Fact, fact, fact.
When you have a hot... When they're arguing, this video shows he's pointing the weapon.
They look at the video and they say, I can't really make anything out of this, so what can we do?
The prosecutors are speculating.
Ah.
If they had the high-resolution video, they could have said, that's clearly his arm.
Let's point that out to the jury.
They weren't able to mount a defense because they weren't given the evidence.
This is a grave constitutional violation.
They say, the ADA Krause had a laundry list of excuses for why the defense ended up with a lower resolution video, smaller file size, with a different file name.
And there's a video, you gotta watch it for the trial, because Krause is like, I mean, maybe when, you know, when I email, the file, the name will change, and they're like, no, it won't.
I showed you.
He's got this software.
Look at this.
It's kind of funny that you're watching a YouTube video, which I'm trying to highlight a YouTube video.
Take a look at that URL.
I tweeted out the link.
The timestamp is 8 hours, 13 minutes, and 19 seconds near the end.
And you can see Handbrake and Format Factory.
If it was just one or the other, you might be able to be like, but is it really the same Handbrake?
Well, he's got both.
Check this out.
This is Handbrake's website.
Open source video transcoder.
I mean, no disrespect to Handbrake.
Sorry, you're getting roped into this.
Seems like you've got a fine, a fine open source software there to help people transcode videos.
You can load up this, this, uh, a program, put in a video, select from a drop-down menu, lower, right, right there, it says look at 480p by 30.
You can load up and say, drop the resolution.
That would create a new filename.
If they texted the video, it would compress, but it would not change the filename.
This, in my opinion, my- Listen.
I have been working in video editing for- How old am I?
I'm not exaggerating when I say I was around 10 years old when I started putting together- When I put together my first computer and began working on computer graphics.
Alright, I'll be fair though.
It wasn't initially me doing any video stuff, but in the early days when I was about 11 or 12, I was working with real video player, ultra low-res video streaming, because I wanted to watch Dragon Ball Z. That's right.
And with the real video player, if you remember back in the day, there were ways to stream video over the internet, but it was extremely low-res, it would buffer, it was awful, but I got to watch Goku fight Cell!
I mean this literally, I was like 12 years old.
When I was about 12 or 13 I started doing graphic, multimedia fusion, Premiere, and
things like that, and Flash.
I was doing Flash animation and videos.
And then when I started skateboarding we started making our own skate videos.
I actually used, man I think I was using After Effects.
No joke to like try and render a video or I was using I was using flash actually it was weird
It was crazy back in the day I've been doing video editing for a long time and let me
just tell you based on on my decades of Working with video editing software and especially running
a company where where I've where I've produced documentaries in the past
They the prosecution in my expert opinion willfully
Down-rendered this video manipulated the evidence to hurt the defense because they thought the defense would not
notice Also, if you have any questions, please leave them in the
comments section below.
Let me explain.
I explained this yesterday, but for those that have missed that context...
Everybody was saying they withheld evidence.
That was the big breaking story.
Jack Posobiec, with all due respect, he tweeted they withheld video evidence.
That's not true.
But I understand why you may have gotten that wrong.
They provided manipulated evidence.
If the prosecution did not turn over the video, and then went to court and said, we have video, the defense would say, your honor, we've not been provided this evidence, and we need to formulate our defense.
The judge would be like, of course!
What are you doing, prosecutors?
You can't do that!
Give him the evidence.
Here's where the state got clever.
Give them a grainy, lower-resolution, compressed version.
They will not know the difference.
They'll watch it.
They'll be confused and unable to formulate a defense.
We'll then play a high-res version for the jury to make our case.
And I'll be honest.
A lot of people are like, wouldn't they notice the video was clearer when it was being played for the jury?
No!
No, I mean seriously, pull up YouTube, watch a music video at 720p or 720 because it was
like 840 or whatever, drop it down to 144 or 240, see if you notice.
Because I'll tell you this, you will see the immediate change, but put it on a TV, play
the video, and you'll understand how it could be that on a TV, sitting in a courtroom, you
would not notice the difference in resolution.
It was only because the defense was showing their version to the jury that the prosecution was forced to bring in their evidence.
You see, this is where their plot, in my opinion, unraveled.
Their goal was to show their version to the jury and argue, see, that's his gun pointing, and it was a slightly clearer version.
The defense, with a clearer version, could have said, here's our expert witness, here's our expert to enhance this and show you what really happened.
But they didn't get that opportunity.
They even said they would have crafted a defense differently.
When the defense played the low-res version for the jury, I believe it was during jury instructions.
For the court, I believe.
Not for the jury.
No, I think it might have been for the jury.
Okay, I could be getting that wrong.
But what happens is, the judge is looking at the video.
So I think it was for the court.
And the judge may have been like, you can't see anything.
So they had no choice but to be like, our version is much clearer.
That right there should have stopped the judge, stopped the court, and I don't understand why it didn't.
The judge should have immediately went, what do you mean your version is clearer?
You provided evidence to the defense, didn't you?
But everyone missed it.
So then, following that, the defense filed their motion for a mistrial with prejudice.
Now, I want to tell you where, uh, let me read a little bit more.
They say, interestingly, a photo purportedly of ADA Krause's laptop screen being projected
onto a large 4K TV shows the presence of imaging software named Handbrake and also FormatFactory.
So let me go back a little bit.
After his laundry list of excuses, the judge was unconvinced by these excuses and suggested the possibility of putting the prosecution on the witness stand themselves to testify under oath as to how this video mix-up occurred.
Do it!
This would be apocalyptic.
I want to see it.
Please, Judge, make them testify under oath.
Do not let them make a mockery of your courtroom.
They have been smacking you in the face repeatedly.
Will you stand for this?
You know, we need people of strength and merit, determination and mental fortitude and willpower to say, I know what's right, I know the law, I know what's wrong, and I'm not gonna play politics.
But the judge said, I'm gonna wait for the jury.
I can respect that to a degree.
But if it were me, I'm not playing those games.
If I were a judge, we had a conversation yesterday on Timcast IRL, and I said this, you know, we had Michael Malice on the show, you guys probably know him, he's an anarchist, and we talked about convicting people, being a jury, and I said, listen, Be warned.
Because if I'm on a jury, there is almost no circumstance in which I will convict someone.
On a grand jury, there is almost no circumstance where I would return an indictment.
Almost no circumstance.
If it involves kids, if they're crimes with serious victims, and there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe in our system to find justice.
But I'm not going to play games with doubt.
I will not condemn someone to prison because I'm unsure.
And you're not supposed to.
It's supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt, right?
Well, I'll tell you this.
If I'm sitting there and they say, we're trying to convince you of something, you can show me a video.
I wouldn't convict Alec Baldwin.
You're damn right.
I would not.
Well, as much as I believe the guy intent, you know, it's more likely that intentionally shot that woman on set.
You put me on a grand jury, and I'm gonna say, I would say this to everyone's faces, it is better that 100 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
Now you can show me all the conjecture, all the circumstantial evidence, and all the witness testimony, and I'll say, unless you show me a video of, you gotta, you had a camera, right?
Of Alec Baldwin, with intent, pointing the weapon and killing that woman, I'm not going to indict him.
I'm not going to put him on trial.
Nope.
Sorry.
Don't have me as a part of your system then.
Because I'll tell you this, I certainly think there's a good likelihood Alec Baldwin should be charged.
And he should go to jail, but it's not going to come from me.
I will not be the arbiter of a person's freedom.
I will not be the boss.
I will not be in charge.
Won't do it.
I will, uh, maybe that's passing the buck, to be completely honest.
Maybe Alec Baldwin's a bad example, but there are circumstances in which I would.
Not in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Not in the case of Gage Grosskreutz.
Here's a better example.
You put me on a grand jury with a circumstance with Gage Grosskreutz, who's in possessions of a concealed weapon, and you say, should we indict him for what happened that night in Kenosha, and I will say no.
You can.
I'm not your boss.
I'm not the arbiter of truth and morality.
You can do it, not me.
You put me in a courtroom, on a jury, to convict?
I would nullify.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, even for Gage Grosskreutz.
I'm just, I'm sorry.
I'm not a conservative.
I'm not going to be like law and order and all that stuff.
I certainly believe in order and I certainly believe in what's right and what is wrong.
But I just, there's very rare circumstances in which I'm going to convict someone.
Now, you want to talk about Gage Grosskreutz committing aggravated assault on Kyle Rittenhouse, which we can clearly see.
Okay, there you go.
So maybe it's a little bold when I say almost no circumstance.
What I mean is, what is it?
Most criminal prosecutions are like property and things like that.
You're not getting that from me.
I'm not convicting people.
Now, if it were me as the judge, seeing what went down, the moment the prosecution questioned the silence, Of the defendant, which they did.
Which is, as Mike Cernovich said, black letter law, undisputable.
He says, you're in law school, they'll show you a court case, there is a right answer.
Like, there's no question of this.
The moment that happened, I would say, did you just question the defendant's right to remain silent in my courtroom?
And when they were like, no, no, no, no, no.
Defense, what do you say?
And if the defense says we want a motion for a mistrial with prejudice, and they did, I would say, granted.
Get the hell out of my courtroom.
And when the press and everyone says what happened, I would say, if the state thinks they're coming into my courtroom to violate the constitutional rights of anyone, we will not tolerate that as a country, as a people, and as a question of law.
I will not allow the state to purposefully violate constitutional rights and trigger a retrial, dragging people through another process again.
That is in defense of every witness, everyone who was subpoenaed and didn't want to be there, but said, I'm going to tell the truth.
Everyone who had to turn over their property, their videos, and the defendant himself.
You're going to drag them through that again because you decided to violate the constitutional rights of the defendant?
Have a nice day.
Mistrial with prejudice granted.
I think the judge has done a pretty good job.
I think he has.
And maybe I wouldn't be a reasonable judge because maybe it's more reasonable to say, I will now hold this mistrial with prejudice in my back pocket for you doing this.
We'll continue and at any moment, rest assured, I will play that card.
And the judge said that.
Maybe he's right.
Maybe I wouldn't make a good judge because I'm too adamant and, you know, how dare you, right?
I'm too aggressive.
And so maybe it's better that you have judges like Schroeder Who now has that moment where he said, he told them, if this happens one more time?
Judge.
It did.
A grave constitutional violation happened now for the third time.
The first being the questioning of the defendant's right to remain silent in front of the jury.
That's shocking.
Because we have a Fifth Amendment right, but the jury does hold it against you if you don't testify.
To bring it up is to put a knife through the heart of your constitutional rights.
To prejudice the jury against you for exercising your rights.
And Cal Rittenhouse was testifying.
The next was when the judge ruled certain evidence wouldn't be admitted, and the prosecution says, I thought you left the door open, I was gonna bring it up anyway.
That is violating the rights of the defendant, because the judge's ruling was ignored, and the judge said, you do it again.
You mean to tell me this guy's got cropping software and compression software, provided a different file to the defense, and then tried acting like he doesn't know how file names are changed?
I'll tell you what.
Put me on a grand jury, and I would indict in this capacity.
Why?
Because he's an agent of the state who sought to suppress the rights of an American citizen.
I don't care if you're Gage Grosskreutz.
You try to indict him for his right to bear arms.
I will not return an indictment.
In fact, I would indict you as an agent of the state for trying to imprison someone for bearing arms.
And I am no fan of Gage Grosskreutz, but he has a right to keep and bear arms.
I would not indict.
I would not convict.
Period.
An agent of the state has two programs.
One to crop video, one to compress it.
The video admitted into evidence, the unicorn footage, is a cropped version.
It appears to be a cropped version of the original drone footage.
What was removed was the full file format that had Fox News' graphic on it.
That's what it appears to be.
It's going viral now on Twitter.
People are showing.
They overlaid Tucker Carlson's drone footage with the evidence, and you can see the video has been cropped.
Who did it?
Krauss has video cropping software on his computer, and he has compression software on his computer.
At the very least, we could argue, Krauss, how is it that you don't know that when a file is copied, its name doesn't change?
How is it you don't know that when you have these two different versions of software, certainly you've rendered video?
Indict!
Get him on the stand!
We are screwed, man, if this injustice is allowed to persist.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
We will see how this plays out, but boy, am I pissed off.
We'll see how this plays out.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all at 1pm.
Currently sitting on the edge of our seats, waiting for the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, there is prosecutorial misconduct across the board, evidence that the prosecutors manipulated evidence in this case to disadvantage the defense, serious constitutional violations, and we don't know how that judge will rule.
But we do have some other stories to go through, and this one I am obsessed with, and you all know it.
Because I was right!
And people told me I was crazy.
People who are fans of the show said, Tim, you are reaching here, it was an accident, and I'm talking about Alec Baldwin.
That's why you clicked the video.
Alec Baldwin intentionally fired the shot that killed Helena Hutchins and chose to play Russian roulette with a loaded gun in violation of the script new lawsuit claims.
You see, Most of you probably know the story.
Alec Baldwin, on the set of the film Rust, fired a gun, killed a woman, injured another guy.
I stated, a couple weeks ago, I believe Alec Baldwin may have done this intentionally.
Everybody immediately said, oh, you're losing it.
I had people on Twitter, not leftists or anything, not critics.
These are not critics who are criticizing.
This is why I'm so obsessed with this.
They were like, they were like, oh man, Tim, you're trying too hard to get views.
I was right.
I'm not saying I was right, that I have proof that Alec Baldwin did.
Decide to murder a woman.
The point I made was, why are we operating under the assumption it was an accident?
Well, we had a conversation, uh, maybe a week and a half ago, and our guest on IRL said, crisis management firm.
You see?
The idea is that as soon as Alec Baldwin killed this woman, he gets on his phone with his PR guy, or company, and they say, we're gonna seed this.
The first story we hear is Alec Baldwin, blank, misfires, shrapnel, hits woman, she dies.
The real story was Alec Baldwin was not supposed to be handed a gun, was not supposed to pull the hammer back, was not supposed to point the weapon, was not supposed to fire the gun at all!
And if that is all true, why did he point it at this woman?! !
See, I'm pissed off because I thought I was being reasonable and rational when I came out and said, why are we all operating under the assumption that this was an accident?
And I get everybody constantly telling me.
I mean, we had guests on the show, more than one.
Yeah.
Are you serious?
You think he meant to do this?
I'm like, why do you think he didn't?
I'm not saying I know he did.
I'm saying stop.
Remove all assumption.
What happened?
Alec Baldwin draws gun, his handed gun, draws it, points it at woman, cocks the hammer, pulls the trigger, live round comes out, woman dies.
In what reality do you say, sounds like an accident to me?
And so when I said, why do we operate under that assumption, people told me crazy.
We got this story first.
So we have this story from about a week ago.
In this case, what happens is, the electrician says, Alec Baldwin wasn't supposed to fire the gun.
We cover it.
And I said, see?
There you go.
You weren't supposed to fire a gun.
Sounds like I was right.
Not that he did intentionally leave proof, but that operating under the assumption it was an accident is incorrect.
What did everybody say?
How does an electrician know?
How does the electrician know what the scene called for?
And I said, maybe he doesn't.
Maybe he does, regardless.
Why are you assuming it was an accident?
Here's the latest story.
And we'll go through this, we'll break this stuff down.
The script supervisor for the film Rust said that Alec Baldwin intentionally fired the shot that killed Helena Hutchins.
It wasn't an accident.
He did it on purpose.
Now.
Is she saying that he intentionally killed her?
I don't think so.
Here's the story from Law & Crime.
A new lawsuit was filed Wednesday over the fatal shooting incident on the set of Alec Baldwin's Western Rust that names the star and producer as defendant.
In the lawsuit filed by script supervisor Mamie Mitchell, Baldwin is accused of failing to follow the script's direction by firing a gun when it wasn't actually called for.
Not just that, she said he was not supposed to be handed the weapon.
Now that's where it gets weird.
They say, in contrast to an earlier lawsuit filed by the movie's gaffer, Serge Svetnoy, Mitchell's lawsuit alleges that Baldwin and others committed intentional and deliberate acts.
Here's the filing.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
that led to the shooting by Mr. Baldwin of a loaded gun constitute intentional acts or
omissions without any just cause or excuse.
On Alec Baldwin's part or the producers of Rust, Mr.
Baldwin chose to play Russian Roulette with a loaded gun without checking it and without having
I said, why are we assuming the armorer made the mistake?
The armorer is the one person trained with weapons.
Why are we assuming the assistant director made the mistake?
The assistant director is handed a gun by the armorer.
Why are we assuming the man who drew a gun, pulled the hammer, fired it, killing a woman, was all just there by happenstance?
And this is important.
This line right here.
Playing with a loaded gun without having the armorer do so.
You mean to tell me the armorer did not check the weapon?
Sounds like it wasn't the armorer's fault.
Like I said.
I said, when it comes to the accident narrative, you have to make a ton of assumptions and believe this ridiculously circuitous story.
That the armorer who's trained in weapons was negligent and accidentally loaded live rounds and didn't realize and didn't check.
Blanks are different from live rounds with bullets.
Blanks are the casings.
No bullet!
Now, there are, um, squib rounds that have no, uh, no powder, because they- so they look real in the gun.
So it's possible a mistake happened, but we would have to assume the armorer made a mistake, gave it to the assistant director, who also, who did not- did not check, yelled, cold gun, gives it to Alec Baldwin, with decades of experience, who does not check, and then, for no reason, aims it, pulls the hammer, shoots a woman.
How about this one?
How about this one?
The crew had been complaining.
Threatening to walk off set.
Alec Baldwin has anger management issues.
In the heat of the moment.
Angry.
He's handed a gun.
Loads it.
Shoots her.
Oopsie!
I mean, I gotta be honest, it doesn't sound like a passion crime.
If that is the more plausible outcome, that Alec Baldwin was angry and decided to kill this woman, it was premeditated.
Because he had to get the bullet in that gun.
Now, don't get me wrong.
I still certainly think it's entirely possible this was a freak accident.
That the armorer didn't realize the squib rounds and the live rounds were next to each other.
Maybe it was sabotage.
My point is only this.
I don't know for sure.
I personally will not operate from the stance that it was an accident, because that requires too much guesswork.
The only thing that matters that Alec Baldwin pointed the gun and shot it.
Now, with this lawsuit, Armourer didn't check it, AD didn't check it, Baldwin didn't check it.
How could you have such an egregious violation of standard protocol among three people who are trained, And then Alec Baldwin decides to shoot a gun the scene doesn't call for?
The only thing I can see is like, he killed that woman, and he wanted to.
Maybe it's not true, I don't know, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Like I said, you know, in my previous segment I talked about Rittenhouse and indictments and my refusal to participate in the system.
It is better that a hundred guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer.
Call me a hypocrite, by all means, because I'm not sure how I justify, how I reconcile this, but if I was on a grand jury, and they came to me with all this evidence, I would be like, I'm not, I'm not going to indict.
I will not be a judge over someone, even as a responsible member of this society.
I just won't do it.
I don't want to be involved.
I don't want to be there.
I don't want to, I don't want the 0.1% chance that I personally condemned someone.
But I will say, if they filed criminal charges against him, if he was indicted, I'd be for it.
Or at the very least an investigation into what exactly happened, because I believe in justice.
I just don't like being... I just would never want to be the person who has power over someone else in that capacity.
Maybe I should be.
So, you know, comment.
Let me know if you think I'm wrong.
Let's read more.
They say his behavior and that of one of the producers on Rust were intentional acts and or omissions without any just cause or excuse and with utter disregard of the consequences of said acts or omissions.
The fact that live ammunition was allowed on the movie set, that guns and ammunition were left unattended, that the gun in question was handed to Mr. Baldwin by the AD who had no business doing so.
The fact that safety bulletins were not promulgated or ignored, coupled with the fact that the scene in question did not call for a gun to be fired at all, makes the case where injury or death was much more than just a possibility, it was a likely result.
Maybe what the lawsuit is saying is that the armorer was supposed to be the one to give him the weapon.
I understand those possibilities, but I don't like to make assumptions beyond what is said.
All I know is, he wasn't supposed to be handed the gun by the assistant director.
He certainly wasn't supposed to then raise that gun, point it at the camera, the woman behind it, cock the hammer, and pull the trigger.
The rules of gun safety.
Never point a we- uh, first is always treat a gun as if it's loaded.
Baldwin didn't do that.
Never point a weapon at something unless you intend to destroy it.
Alec Baldwin perhaps intended to destroy this camera and hurt this person?
Maybe?
I don't know.
But he pointed that gun.
You keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
Not only did his finger go on the trigger, he cocked the hammer.
It was a single-action revolver.
That means Okay, so modern revolvers are double action.
When you pull the trigger, the hammer goes back, and then wham!
Hits the primer, the hammer hits the primer, boom, or the firing pin, which one is it?
Dude, hits the primer, bullet goes, explosion, bullet goes off.
Single action revolvers.
I actually own one.
You have to pull the hammer back manually, then pull the trigger.
It's old school.
So not only did Alec Baldwin have his finger on the trigger, he cocked the hammer.
Rule number four, always know what you are pointing at and what lies beyond it.
Alec Baldwin may have been pointing at the camera, but this woman lied beyond it.
He violated every rule.
And Alec Baldwin has decades of training.
The moment I heard Alec Baldwin had decades of firearms training, my mind went straight to intentional murder.
The crew had been complaining, and he says, I had a dinner.
She was my friend.
We had dinner on Friday.
Was it a dinner?
Or was it a private meeting to discuss terms on the problems happening on set?
I don't know for sure.
And I don't want to speculate beyond what I don't know.
I just know they had a meeting.
He says it was... Helene is not there to tell us what really went down.
I believe another person was there who could tell us, Joel.
But Alec Baldwin chose to make an intentional act.
That's interesting, isn't it?
They go on to say the 30-page original complaint also offers what Mitchell says should have happened during the tragic scene in question.
When the morning filming was completed, everyone broke for lunch.
At that time, Plaintiff Hutchins and Sosa met and spoke together in order to confirm what filming would take place after the break.
It was discussed that there would be three tight camera shots when filming resumed.
One camera shot would be focused on the defendant Baldwin's eyes.
One would be focused on a bloodstain on defendant Baldwin's shoulder.
And the third would focus on defendant Baldwin's torso as he reached his hand down to holster and remove the gun.
There was nothing in the script about the gun being discharged by defendant Baldwin or by any other person.
Okay.
So it seems like he should have had the weapon.
But it shouldn't have come from the AD, it should have come from the armorer who checked it.
So here's what I think, if I were to make an assessment.
Alec Baldwin was goofing off.
He was drawing the weapon, and then thought he'd be funny and went, HAHA!
Bang.
Dead.
Now, that's negligent homicide, I suppose.
And we talked with Mike Cernovich last night.
He was on the show.
He was hanging out.
He's a lawyer.
And I asked him, if a guy is standing in the middle of the street, and Alec Baldwin walks up to him, pulls a gun, cocks the hammer, points it, shoots it, kills him, what would a prosecutor go for?
And he's like, that's intentional homicide.
And I was like, right, so why is this different?
He made a good point about how the courts work.
Because they'll look at the patterns in the circumstance.
Because it is a movie set.
Because Alec Baldwin didn't have a gun because he wanted to go, he wanted to act.
Because if you're out in the street with a gun, it's for self-defense, presumably, or your right to bear arms.
But the gun is intentionally there as a weapon.
On set, the gun is there as a prop.
However, I don't think it's fair to call it a prop gun.
It was a real gun.
But, the DA would look at this and say, the intention of the weapon was just to be shown on camera.
Not to be used as a weapon in self-defense or otherwise.
On the street, that's not the case.
Unless you're filming somebody, like you're out walking around with a weapon, it's clearly to be used as a weapon to cause harm, and typically in the event of legal self-defense.
Some people might want to do, you know, nasty things, you know, and commit violent acts.
So, I think, as I stated the first time around, Alec Baldwin was screwing around.
He was screwing around and laughing.
And there was a viral post where apparently they said Alec Baldwin said, how about I just shoot the both of ya and then pull the gun and pull the trigger.
Apparently that was a hoax.
That was someone took an article and then edited it to put in this text and then made it go viral.
But now I find that completely plausible.
I mean, I always did.
They're going to say there was supposed to be no discharge by Baldwin or any other person.
The lawsuit also says that safety protocols were violated in the immediate moments leading up to the shooting and that such violations were also deliberate decisions by Baldwin and the assistant director Dave Halls.
calls.
Quote, live ammunition was allowed onto the set despite the fact that live ammunition
is never to be used nor brought onto any studio lot or stage.
The complaint goes on.
Alec Baldwin.
Intentionally, without just cause or excuse, cocked and fired the loaded gun, even though the upcoming scene to be filmed did not call for cocking and firing the firearm.
Alec Baldwin.
Intentionally, without just cause or excuse, fired the gun towards individuals, including plaintiff Ms.
Hutchins and Mr. Sosa, even though the protocol was not to do so.
It wasn't just the scene.
It was protocol.
You guys, I bet most of you know gun stuff more than I do.
You know exactly what this is about.
The lawsuit says that Baldwin flouted well-known safety rules when firing the gun, rules he would have been well apprised of after his decades in Hollywood.
Alec Baldwin should have assumed the gun in question was loaded unless and until it was demonstrated to him or checked by him that it was not loaded.
He had no right to rely upon some alleged statement by the AD that it was a cold gun.
Mr. Baldwin cannot hide behind the AD to attempt to excuse the fact that he did not check the gun himself.
Additionally, the lawsuit says that Baldwin and other producers made intentional efforts to save costs, and that those decisions intentionally endangered lives.
Quote, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therein alleges, that defendant producers intended to cut through what was considered derisively as red tape, common in Hollywood-based productions by running some of Rust Filmmaking out of Georgia and New Mexico.
As part of the cost-cutting measures taken to produce Rust within the low-budget mold, defendant producers intentionally failed to hire experienced crew members to manage and handle the numerous weapons that were to be used in the film Rust, an Outlaw Western-themed film that was shown to involve the use of numerous firearms, considered an ultra-hazardous activity throughout the filming.
The filing technically alleges three causes of action.
One, assault.
Two, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
And three, deliberate infliction of harm.
He's being sued for deliberate infliction of harm.
As a result of Defendant Baldwin's pointing and discharging the gun towards her, Mitchell has suffered compensable damages, including without limitation extreme and severe emotional distress, for which she has had to employ medical treaters, including without limitation mental health providers, for her emotional and physical injuries.
Plaintiff was severely injured and without limitation her health strength and activity and sustained seriously
serious physical trauma and shock and injury To her nervous system in person all of which injuries have
caused and continue to cause plaintiff extreme mental physical and nervous pain
I don't know exactly what happened to this individual, but you need to understand that when Alec Baldwin pulled the
gun pulled the hammer back
Pulled the trigger Ejecting a live round killing a woman and injuring another
that bang probably led a ton of people to jump and slam to the ground
And they probably got hurt, too.
I'm not gonna pretend they got shot hurt, but an older woman working on a set, or middle-aged woman, yeah, she may have bruised up, she may be sore, she may have some sprains.
You know, I was talking about this in the ADA, in the Rittenhouse case, with ADA Binger.
If I was in the jury, you guys know this ADA binger pointed the AR-15 with his finger on the trigger at the jury, so it was reported.
I still don't believe it, to be honest, but it was reported by Western Journal and several other individuals, verified individuals on Twitter, several other news outlets.
If I was in the jury, in the Rittenhouse trial, and the prosecutor pointed a gun at me, I would hit the deck.
I would immediately drop down.
I have been in gun shops.
Where someone will look at a weapon, and they'll turn, and I will jump back.
I don't care if you think that gun is not loaded.
I, whether I'm handling it or not, will always treat a gun as if it is loaded.
So that means, if you're a prosecutor, and there's no magazine in the AR, there could be one in the chamber!
I don't care.
A gun is always loaded.
I suppose it's funny to say because like if you're in combat and you're going click click, you're like, oh no.
But if I was on that jury, I would have thrown other people to the deck.
I would have grabbed them and get down.
I'm not kidding.
I would, I would freak out.
I would immediately, I would have freaked out.
I would have abs.
I'll tell you this, the very least, if we got past that, I'd go into the jury deliberations and I would be like, acquittal on all counts.
The prosecutor pointed a gun at me.
He has no grounds.
His entire argument's moot.
He has no idea what he's talking about.
Acquittal on all counts.
Think I wanna say.
Safety issues should have been on the producers' minds, Mitchell says, because of at least two instances of weapons misfiring during the filming of Rust.
You can't- You're not- You're not getting past me on this.
It was an accident.
Multiple misfires?
Pointing a weapon for no reason?
I'll tell you this.
If there's one thing I can't say as to why it should be considered intentional is because with the misfires, Alec Baldwin knew there was a possibility the gun could go off.
It happened twice before.
Well, misfire, I think, is the wrong phrase.
I think it was negligent discharge.
Alec Baldwin's like, haha, I'm gonna point it at you.
Bang.
Dead.
He knows too much.
He knows too much.
This wasn't an instant where the gun fell, fired, and hit somebody.
This is a guy with decades of firearm safety protocol, uh, safety training pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger.
The one thing that gets me to, yo, maybe he wanted to kill this woman.
It's one thing if he had the gun and he went, yeah, you know, he pointed at him.
It's another thing if he picks the gun up, cocks the hammer, points it, and shoots.
I think he should be charged.
And again, maybe hypocritical for me to say because I'd probably never return an indictment if I was on a grand jury.
But I think based on the evidence, man, I mean, it looks intentional, doesn't it?
I'm obsessed with this, I know, I'm sorry.
It's just that I felt like when I came out and said, guys, I don't think it's an accident, people just didn't believe me.
And you know, have you ever had that feeling where you're like, you believe so strongly in something and people don't believe you, but you're like, why don't people believe me?
You know what I mean?
And I'm not saying I know it was intentional, I'm just saying, don't assume it was an accident.
People didn't believe me.
Here's your lawsuit.
It doesn't mean it's proof, it's just a lawsuit.
I don't think anything will happen to Alec Baldwin.
Meanwhile, we're still awaiting what's going on in the Rittenhouse trial.
I got the live updates from Andrew Bronco over at Legal Insurrection as of 10-12 a.m.
Central.
Occasional glimpses of the judge, but not a whole lot, so we'll see.
