S5229 - Kyle Rittenhouse Found NOT GUILTY On ALL Counts, Leftists OUTRAGED, Push Lies As Fear Of Riots Erupt
Kyle Rittenhouse Found NOT GUILTY On ALL Counts, Leftists OUTRAGED, Push Lies As Fear Of Riots Erupt. The same lies from Democrats are persisting and fears that riots will erupt this weekend have many in fear
But others say this will set the Kyle Rittenhouse precedent, that people can defend their communities and not be convicted if attacked by blm rioters and antifa
#Rittenhouse
#RittenhouseNotGuilty
#RittenhouseVerdict
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Kyle Rittenhouse has been found not guilty on all counts.
This is it.
We've won the battle, not the war.
But I'll break down in this opening segment why and what's happening.
Many on the left are very furious and they're pushing more lies.
In our next story, the vaccine mandates are getting serious.
Austria is now forcing vaccinations.
Government mandate for all citizens.
And boosters are coming to America.
In our last segment, my friends, this has been a breaking news day.
We know that there is more evidence that the prosecution was withholding evidence from the defense.
This story was breaking.
I'm going to include it for you to listen.
But it is partially irrelevant now that Kyle Rittenhouse has been found not guilty.
But I think it's worth hearing anyway.
Before we get started, leave us a good review, give us five stars, and tell your friends about the show.
So now let's get into that first story.
Not only did Kyle win today, we all did.
This is a huge victory for self-defense.
It's a huge victory for wanting to take care of your community.
And it is pushback against the lies of the media.
We're still not out of the woods.
I am very, very happy for young Kyle Rittenhouse that he has his freedom, that he's been proven right, but he never should have gone through this trial.
And now, with the not guilty verdict on all counts, the judge has not issued a ruling on the motion for a mistrial with prejudice.
The corrupt actions of the prosecutor will go unabated.
He will be allowed to do this again.
Now, there still may be malicious prosecution, and we are getting strong reactions across the board.
But my friends, you need to see the reaction from Kyle Rittenhouse, and there's a lot more we need to talk about.
You see, on this day, it is very good news for those that believe in freedom, and it is bad news for those that seek to lie.
But we have a new story from reporter Nellie Bolas.
Not everybody's a big fan of her, but she wrote how she tried to cover what was happening in Kenosha, and the New York Times told her they would not run the story until after the election.
And this is why I say, the battle today is won, but the war is far from over.
Already, many left-wing personalities, leftist personalities, are condemning this.
The ACLU, supposedly, the American Civil Liberties Union, not really, is condemning this as white supremacy.
Mayor Bill de Blasio has come out and said that these men shot by Reynoso were victims, even though, after judicial review and a jury verdict, These men were not victims, but they were assailants.
And I also have a quote from the significant other of one of the men who lost their lives, Anthony Huber.
And I think we need to talk about this quote.
It's very, it's a good quote.
It is.
Basically, Anthony Huber was the second man to have lost his life, and his girlfriend said that she hopes Kyle Rittenhouse finds love, and justice would be him understanding what she lost, not life in prison.
And I respect that.
I really do.
What I don't respect are the many people who have come out clearly still not knowing what this court case was about.
Now, I have a lot of friends who are politically left, people I've known throughout my career, and I am surprised to see them saying, I can't believe this is happening.
These are not overt ideologues.
But when I look at their Twitter responses, I can see people saying, did you watch the trial?
I mean, right now on Twitter, not surprised is trending.
And it's because people on the left were like, I'm not surprised this is the outcome.
Mostly, people are saying this because we watched the trial.
We knew the state's key witnesses supported self-defense.
We knew the state was engaged in gross misconduct and grave constitutional violations.
But some people are saying, I'm not surprised because they're like, this country is a white supremacist state.
Well, That means the war is not over.
But my friends, wow, has Liberty been winning?
I mean, I've shown you the map of gun control is becoming less and less popular.
And I think this plays a big role in what we see here.
I think the jurors here, the regular people of Kenosha, they thought long and hard about this.
Four days to come to a verdict.
But there is something that needs to be said about that.
It's a Friday.
They waited until a Friday, the worst possible day for this.
Now, perhaps the idea was news events have less of an impact on a Friday, perhaps, but not when it comes to the political divide in this country.
Friday, payday, the weekend, You can expect to see riots, but there is something that many of the left are now concerned about.
The Kyle Rittenhouse precedent.
That was from Hasan Piker, one of the most prominent left-wing personalities in the country.
The Kyle Rittenhouse precedent is that Kyle, who showed up to a violent riot with a medical kit and a rifle, Was exonerated, was acquitted when he defended himself with that rifle.
And the concern from the left is that many more people will show up armed to defend themselves and their communities from violent rioters.
Now, I will not condemn or condone.
I would say the police need to do their jobs.
But to put it simply, Many people are now going to go out armed and they're not going to let the rioters burn down these cities.
This means the Black Lives Matter riots and the violence, the chaos, the destruction that seeks to destroy our towns will be curtailed out of the fear being expressed by many of these individuals.
Now, The media is still lying.
And let's go through this, of course, with the breaking news that Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty on all counts.
But we'll take a look at the reactions.
And I want to show you how the New York Times actually tried to cover this up and how they are engaged in what I would say is also grave constitutional violations.
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com, become a member to support our writers.
This story right here, Breaking News, Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges.
We are sitting here, we are watching the feed, we are sweating bullets, waiting for that verdict, making sure we get it right.
And not just on Breaking News, but on other exclusive stories, like one we have about Fauci and horrifying experiments that he's conducting.
We cover news that we think is important and we fact check.
And that's because you guys have become members and that supports our ability to do this.
The money that you give as a member, it's not about, it's not absolutely for any of us, about buying infinity pools or anything like that.
It's about expanding the operation and fighting for liberty, for justice, for honesty.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments like we had yesterday, and we're gonna have an episode of The Green Room up tonight so you can see behind the scenes with several of our guests.
But don't forget to like this video right now, subscribe to this channel, share this video right now with all your friends, please.
Share this, let people know what this is about.
And I will break down some of the details of this case very simply so you understand.
There may be many people who don't get why Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty.
I will lay it out very simply.
Now, that may not be enough.
I've covered this extensively with sources and with evidence, but I'll break it down.
So let's jump right in.
From TimCast.com, the jury's verdict was returned on November 19th, just after 12 p.m.
Central Time.
My friends, you will remember where you were if you were watching this verdict.
You will remember this day because it may lead to a dark path.
I mean, it's good for us.
It is.
Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense, albeit maybe misguided, but he did not instigate or provoke.
But there may be a dark path in that the recoil, the reaction from the extremists Results in rioting, chaos, and destruction.
But the recoil in that direction, the precedent set here, may be that people stand up and say, we will not allow you in our communities.
I believe the proper response is the refunding of police.
Not the refund, like give them their money, but to fund them once again.
Let's read.
The judge reminded those in the courtroom reactions would not be permitted.
The jury returned not guilty on all charges.
First, Joseph Rosenbaum.
Second, Richard McGinnis.
Third, an unknown male.
Fourth, Anthony Huber.
And fifth, Gage Grosskreutz.
When Rittenhouse was pronounced not guilty on the last charge involving Grosskreutz, he collapsed into his chair.
He did.
I have the video.
I have the video right here.
You can see.
I'll just play.
You might not be able to hear it.
It might sound wonky because we have the overhead speakers on.
Kyle Rittenhouse collapses.
He falls to the ground.
He is lifted up, placed in the chair.
He's hyperventilating.
You can see his defense attorney, Shirafis, he's saying, breathe.
Or I'm assuming he's saying breathe, but he's motioning.
Breathe.
Breathe.
That's what it looks like.
I was nearly in tears.
I kid you not.
Other people were in tears.
I get a message from some family members.
They're saying they're crying right now.
I was overwhelmed with joy.
When I was watching this verdict come down live, when they announced the verdict was in, it would be announced shortly, my heart was going a million miles an hour.
I look at my watch.
It's got the heart rate monitor on it.
I was sweating bullets.
But the joke I made on Twitter was, if I'm sweating bullets, Kyle must be sweating 50 BMG.
They said there was one verdict.
And when they came out and said, not guilty, I knew it.
And Kyle Rittenhouse, as he heard one by one, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty.
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.
We're gonna party tonight in Kyle Rittenhouse's, for the verdict, for the verdict.
And I hope Kyle Rittenhouse has a celebration with his friends and his family.
I hope he cries tears of joy and freedom.
And I certainly hope everyone who doesn't know why this happened, just please get better sources.
Let me break down, one by one, on the counts, as simply as I can for those that don't understand what happened.
On the count of Joseph Rosenbaum, there are simple arguments and simple points that need to be made.
Rosenbaum charged at Kyle Rittenhouse.
Kyle ran from him.
Rosenbaum had blast burns on his hand.
Earlier in the night, it was testified to by state witnesses I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Early in the trial, state witnesses testified that in that night, Rosenbaum threatened Kyle Rittenhouse's life.
Kyle Rittenhouse himself testified he once again threatened him to carve out his heart.
Rather brutal.
Now, I don't want anyone, I wish no one, I wish there was no harm, no injury.
I think a reasonable person says that.
There's a lot of people who are, I will just say, aggressive, perhaps rightly so, who demand justice.
But for me, I wish this night didn't happen.
I wish Kyle never had to go through this trial, and he shouldn't have, regardless of the night in question.
But that's Rosenbaum.
Richard McGinnis, a good friend of mine, he was a reporter in the vicinity.
They charged Kyle with, I believe it was some form of reckless endangerment, for potentially putting Richie in harm's way.
The defense said, Richard McGinnis, we call him Richie, is a reporter who knew he was running into danger.
In fact, Richie told us...
On this, on Timcast IRL, our conversational show, something to the effect of, you know, he's kind of a dummy.
He ran towards the danger.
That's what journalists do.
Kyle cannot be held responsibility simply because someone else may have been rushing towards danger as per their job.
And more importantly, the law stated, the defense's argument, that Kyle cannot be found to be reckless if he is acting in self-defense.
Now, I don't know Richie's position.
That's his private and personal view.
And he is a friend of mine, a friend of the show.
He's skated at my house on more than one occasion, and we're happy he's safe.
But I will say this, as a friend of one of the purported victims, I suppose.
They're not victims, but complaining witness, I guess.
I don't think he was complaining, however you describe him.
And a key witness of the state.
I agree it was the right decision to find Kyle not guilty on that count.
Again, I'll stress, I know Richie.
He's a friend.
I'm happy he's safe.
It was dangerous.
But this was the right call.
I can't speak for him how he feels.
For the unknown male, apparently this man was known to the prosecutor.
He agreed to testify in exchange for immunity.
They denied it.
Well, this man jump kicked Kyle Rittenhouse.
If the state wanted to bring that evidence forward and bring this man forward, they could have.
They did not.
Not guilty.
Anthony Huber, this is where we have to have an important conversation, my friends.
We have the story here from TimCast.com.
Girlfriend of man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse tells TimCast what she thinks justice would be.
I want to read this for you.
But I want to state, as I've always stated, I don't fault Anthony Huber.
I really don't.
And I'm really sad this happened to him.
He attacked Kyle Rittenhouse.
He was wrong to do so.
He had no idea what was happening.
He was part of a mob chasing down a young man, and they did not know why.
There is no excuse for attacking someone with deadly force.
There's a story going viral right now.
A man lost his life after being hit in the head with a skateboard.
Many people are posting memes about the Rittenhouse trial because of this.
I know full well, as someone who's been a skateboarder for decades, don't come to me and tell me skateboards aren't dangerous.
I know the stories.
I know the stories of the missing teeth.
People grab it by the truck, the metal part, and you can swing it, and it's got weight in the front from its other metal truck.
Anthony Huber, in my opinion, was down there, I don't know why, perhaps supporting an idea or a protest, but it was a violent riot.
I don't believe he attacked Kyle Rittenhouse for any reason, for any good reason, and I mean it.
But he's not like Rosenbaum.
Rosenbaum instigated a fight and threatened this kid's life on more than one occasion.
My perspective of Anthony Huber was that he just was mindless.
And I'm not saying that to be mean.
I'm saying, he heard a bunch of people saying, get him, get him, get him, and he sees a guy with a gun and he thinks, I'm gonna grab him, I'm gonna get him.
He hits him twice.
Now, you may say, this guy's a criminal, he's got a history and all that stuff, and that's true.
I'm not saying he's a good person.
I'm saying in this regard, it wasn't like he was a violent criminal who was seeking to maliciously attack Kyle Rittenhouse.
It was just mindless behavior.
That being said, Kyle was absolutely entitled to defend himself from an attack that could have caused him great bodily harm or death.
Anthony Huber grabbed Kyle's gun.
He was holding the barrel.
Kyle said he felt it being pulled.
He fired!
Anthony Hooper lost his life, and I certainly, absolutely wish he did not.
This is not Rosenbaum.
Rosenbaum committed atrocities against children.
Atrocities.
Now, I believe that has some relevance to this case, but at this point, it's moot.
Now, I want to show you just a few more counts before we go to the quote from his girlfriend.
Gage Grosskreutz.
Gage Grosskreutz testified that it wasn't until he advanced on Kyle with his gun pointed at him that Kyle fired.
The defense tried to argue that Kyle didn't have to, but it was an absurd argument.
And that's why he was found not guilty on that count.
An armed man charging at you.
You're certainly allowed to defend yourself.
An exclusive from TimCast.com.
Girlfriend of Man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse tells TimCast what she thinks justice would be.
During a stunning interview with the New York Post on Thursday, Giddings admitted that she has sympathy for Rittenhouse despite her belief that he was running around the town trying to be king of the world.
I do have a lot of sympathy for this kid because he is just a kid to me so it would be a really dumb kid who unfortunately became the figurehead of this.
Kenosha also needs to be held responsible for allowing this militia to show up and do exactly what they came here to do.
What they came there to do was to stop the riots from destroying their community, which had been under siege.
Let me show you.
Elderly man defending store during Kenosha riots has broken jaw.
I can't show you the video.
It's graphic.
It's horrifying.
This poor man was trying to just stop people as they ransacked his store.
And they bashed him in the face with a rock.
And he's left laying on the ground disoriented and bleeding.
And this young man, Calvert, now sees us and says, I'm not all about that.
He gets asked by a friend, do you want to come down and help?
And he does.
Now there's video apparently emerging showing that some of the people in question who asked those young men to come down were also out there that day.
I don't know for sure exactly what happened, but let's read more.
One of them goes out taking advantage of a vulnerable situation so that he can live out his fantasy of being king of the world, and one of them out there doing absolutely nothing.
Nothing effing wrong and being presented with, yes, an active shooter situation.
Now, she's wrong about that.
She's absolutely wrong about that.
Well, she's entitled to believe so, but it's not correct.
Kyle Rittenhouse was running towards the police.
Well, let me show you what she said.
Cassandra Fairbanks, who is editor-in-chief here at TimCast.com, said,
I just watched your interview, which was actually pretty moving, particularly since you acknowledge
that he's just a kid. I am wondering, though, what do you think justice would be? Life in prison? Less?
What do you think would be fair? The girlfriend of Anthony Huber stated,
To me, justice would be this kid growing up, finding love and family as beautiful as Anthony
and I had, then him realizing exactly what was taken from us and feeling that fully.
I don't wish this on anyone.
That's amazing.
That's a beautiful statement.
I don't believe justice is putting someone in prison, for the most part.
Some people we need to lock up, but it's not so much about justice.
I believe that certain people, maybe Rosenbaum, who committed atrocities against children, should be locked up, and probably indefinitely, because they're a harm to themselves and others.
You see what happens.
As for Kyle Rittenhouse and for many crimes, including victimless crimes and violent crimes, we have to ask ourselves, depending on the severity of the crime, if we're serving justice by simply locking them up and forgetting about them.
Is there a better way?
Rehabilitation instead of retribution?
Well, let me show you a little bit of what's going on here.
The reaction from the left.
Fascist judge needs to read the Constitution.
Adopting Hitler's enemy of the people line is not a good look right now.
Yikes.
Freaky stuff.
There's more.
We have this one from Hassan Abi.
Hassan Piker.
Well, there it is.
The Rittenhouse precedent.
Hassan has stated before that he feared a precedent if the right was able to, if Kyle Rittenhouse won, that the right would be able to go out and defend themselves.
I mean, that's basically how he stated it.
You know, the way he framed it was kind of that vigilantes would come out and they'd feel emboldened.
But what's he really saying here?
Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty.
And basically what he's saying is that The precedent is, you can be safe to render aid to protesters, like Kyle Rittenhouse did, to those he probably didn't even... I don't think he agreed or disagreed, for the most part, with them.
I think he was just there to keep the peace.
He wanted to be a cop.
The real precedent here is that you can render aid to those who are protesting and even rioting, and if you have to defend yourself, we will not imprison you for it.
We have this from Andy Ngo.
Tanya James of Arkansas says that Kyle Rittenhouse should have been killed.
She says Kyle should have never made it to trial.
Bring that bee to my neck of the mother-effing woods.
I'd imagine what she was going for.
Joy Reid.
We knew, but it's helpful to remind ourselves how America was designed to work.
Yeah, yeah.
In response, one woman says, I know where I stand.
Honestly terrifying, though.
Any protests now will be met with armed counter-protesters assuming they won't be held accountable for their actions.
If they just provoke the crowd first.
But Kyle didn't do that.
We know he didn't do that.
We have this from Brennan Chapman.
The President of the United States and several members of Congress called an innocent child a white supremacist and terrorist.
They did.
The ACLU.
Disgusting, dangerous, disgusting, unacceptable white supremacy.
We have this from Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Anthony Hooper and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims.
They should be alive today.
Well, the jury found that they were actually assailants.
I believe Kyle Rittenhouse will never have to work a day in his life after this.
This is a fresh statement.
and start shooting people. To call this a miscarriage of justice is an understatement.
I hope Kyle Rittenhouse sues each and every one. I believe Kyle Rittenhouse will never have to
work a day in his life after this. This is a fresh statement, November 19th. The fact is,
Kyle Rittenhouse never took a gun across state lines.
And it's easily proven if you just watch the court case.
Dominic Black is being criminally charged for the straw purchase because he gave the gun to Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin.
Mayor Bill de Blasio didn't pay attention.
Jordan Chamberlain tweeted, I'm shocked that Rittenhouse didn't get convicted after this hard-hitting and persuasive argument from the prosecutor.
Jordan, of course, being an excellent reporter and a good friend of us in the show, and she shows what Binger stated to the court.
This video, to me, was one of the most shocking videos I have ever seen.
Binger says that all Rosenbaum did that night of the shooting was tip over a porta potty with no one in it, light a dumpster on fire, swing a chain, tip over a trailer, set it on fire, and repeatedly say the N-word.
That to me was shocking and I felt like we would get a not guilty on all counts verdict immediately after this alone.
Rosenbaum flipped over a port-a-potty, set fire to a dumpster, was pushing it towards a gas station, was swinging a chain around, threatened the life of Kyle Rittenhouse more than once, flipped a truck over in the street, a trailer.
I was told that Drew Hernandez, a witness and who testified in this trial, Told me they set a garbage truck on fire.
And when he said this, I'm like, this is shocking to me.
Is this supposed to be like, it's not a big deal?
Remarkably, in a pre-trial hearing, he said the same thing.
It was just arson.
And the judge said, are you kidding me?
Just arson?
What is this?
I'm surprised these charges were allowed to move forward.
And now we have this.
The darkest of these stories.
Now, we're gonna go more in-depth on this one later tonight, because this is a story that I think may get glossed over, but please, please, please, share this.
This may be one of the most important stories out of the whole Kyle Rittenhouse circumstance, scenario, whatever.
We have won the battle.
Kyle Rittenhouse is free.
He's not guilty.
But there is a war.
Figurative, cold, whatever you want to call it.
In this article from Barry Weiss's Substack, in this segment written by Nelly Bolas, let me read this for you and shock you to your core.
You must share this.
Whether verbally, or on paper, or write a story about it, I don't care how you do it.
I'm not saying just this video.
You can share this video if you'd like, but it's 20 minutes in.
Click the share button, click the timestamp, let people know this.
A note on Kenosha in light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
Until quite recently, the mainstream liberal argument was that burning down businesses for racial justice was both good and healthy.
Burnings allowed for the expression of righteous rage, and the businesses all had insurance to rebuild.
Liberal Democrat types tried rejecting this premise, but there is an article called In Defense of Looting from years ago in Ferguson.
Nellie is not wrong about this.
Now, it may not have been the majority, I believe every single one absolutely, but it was the majority.
People were saying this is racial justice.
They were saying this is an expression of our rage.
Chris Cuomo said, since when are protests supposed to be peaceful?
MSNBC stood in front of a burning police station and said, hey, hey, hey, but it's mostly peaceful.
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.
When I was at the New York Times, I went to Kenosha to see about this, and it turned out not to be true.
The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, under-insured cell phone shops and car lots.
It was very sad to see and to hear from people who had suffered.
Beyond the financial loss, small storefronts are quite meaningful to their owners and communities, which continuously baffles the Zoom class.
Something odd happened.
With that story, after I filed it, it didn't run.
It sat and sat.
Now, it could be that the piece was just bad.
I've sent in bad ones before, and I'll do it again.
A few weeks after I filed, an editor told me the Times wouldn't be able to run my Kenosha insurance debacle piece until after the 2020 election.
So sorry.
There was a variety of reasons given.
Space, timing, tweaks, here or there.
Eventually, the election passed, Biden was in the White House, and my Kenosha story ran.
However, the reason for holding the peace, covering the suffering and the riots, was not a priority.
The reality that brought Cal Rittenhouse into the streets was one we reporters were meant to ignore.
The old man who tried to put out a blaze at Kenosha and had his jaw broken.
The top editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer had to resign in June 2020 amid a staff outcry for publishing a piece with the headline, Buildings Matter Too.
If you lived in those neighborhoods on fire, you were not supposed to get an extinguisher.
The proper response, the only acceptable response, was to see the brick and mortar torn down.
To watch the fires burn and say, thank you.
There was a man in Minnesota.
He's a firefighter.
A family man.
He was a black American.
Not that I think it matters, but certainly I think it matters to those who claim to fight for racial justice.
It was his dream to have a sports bar.
I feel that, man.
My family had a business when I was a kid.
We had a cafe.
We had a venue.
I understand that feeling.
A place to call your own.
To serve up good meals to the community.
To have a laugh and to watch the game.
To have community.
I watched that video where he cried.
When they burned, they ransacked his building first.
He shows up the next day.
He's crying.
His dream was ripped away from him.
It was destroyed.
Not to mention the lives lost.
Well, that comes first, for sure.
But the lives of these people were considered meaningless?
With the 25 dead in the George Floyd riots?
This man's dream, his life, was meaningless?
David Dorn.
Retired police captain in Philadelphia.
I believe Philadelphia.
During the riots, went to his friend's pawn shop because the alarm went off.
He was shot in the chest and killed.
On livestream.
Over a TV!
This man's dream.
In Minnesota.
He ended up raising over a million bucks.
Man, that warmed my heart.
I hope he lives well.
I don't know what he's done with it, but I hope he does whatever he wants.
He deserves it.
These people may not all be evil, but they're like zombie hordes.
They destroy.
They burn.
When the man came back to his business after it was ransacked and gave an interview, people were actively stealing his safe.
When he came back again, the building had been completely destroyed.
No insurance would cover this, and the conundrum in Minnesota was that the cost of rubble removal was greater than the insurance would pay out.
Nellie Bolus of the New York Times had that story and said, I want the American people to know what is happening to the working class, to the poor, multiracial communities, and they said no.
Because Donald Trump might win the election.
Not verbatim.
But as the story goes, they would not run the piece until after the election.
But I know they raided Project Veritas' James O'Keefe's home and many of their journalists, and they seized their electronic devices.
Shortly thereafter, the New York Times came into possession of privileged communications.
That is, one of the rights we hold most dear is your right to counsel.
James O'Keefe was talking with his lawyers about how to operate.
The New York Times published those communications while actively in a lawsuit with Project Veritas.
Project Veritas sued the New York Times for defamation.
Now it is widely believed, and I think it's fair to say, the FBI leaked those communications to the New York Times.
The New York Times is actively defying a court order not to publish them.
Because the New York Times is evil.
These people are evil people.
These are evil institutions.
MSNBC right now, and the whole time, has been putting out falsely framed information to convince you and your friends that Kyle Rittenhouse was an evil white supremacist.
Look at what Mary-Belle de Blasio said.
Cross state lines?
Are you kidding?
Not even Hasan Piker believes he crossed state lines with a gun.
But that's what de Blasio said.
Even the leftists who are angry know certain things aren't true.
So why are they lying to you?
I mean, perhaps for political power?
Like Nelly Bolas' story?
Perhaps it was all about winning an election?
There's potentially going to be riots, because the verdict came down on a Friday, and I talked about this yesterday.
Now, my prediction was a mistrial with prejudice.
Mistrial with prejudice, on a Friday, and there will be riots.
Because the judge intervening would be dark.
I'm scared of this, of the results.
We've won the battle, but not the war.
And in many ways, we've taken great losses.
The state introduced evidence that was not to be admitted.
The state questioned the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant on the stand in front of the jury, violating his constitutional rights, a grave constitutional violation.
They appear to have tampered with evidence and provided false evidence, and now we have another story of them withholding evidence, and they got away with it.
Just because you've won the race doesn't mean we don't ban the cheaters.
Imagine this.
Imagine you're watching an Olympic 100 meter dash.
And there's a guy with a jet pack on.
There's another guy running.
And the guy with the jet pack is real close to winning.
And he's just rocketing across the ground, not even running.
And the actual athlete wins by a hair.
And then the ref comes out and says, look, we know this guy is cheating, but because you won, it doesn't matter anyway, does it?
No, it does matter.
A message must be sent.
That being said, as much as I did want to mistrial with prejudice, it's a really good outcome that the jury said not guilty on all counts.
That'll send a message to all of the people who want to protect their communities.
It'll send a message to all the people who want to vandalize, destroy, burn, loot, and murder.
It is not okay.
And to those who want to protect their communities, you have a right to do so.
But please, just think through before you go out there with a weapon.
Kyle shouldn't have been there.
He really shouldn't have.
But I'm not saying that I fault him for doing so.
I'm saying no one should have been.
The rioters shouldn't have been.
The police should have been.
We got a lot to talk about tonight.
And a lot to go through.
But this is amazing stuff.
Thank you all so much for watching as I cover this trial.
Thank you all so much for watching Tim Castellaralli as we interviewed seven different witnesses to the night in question.
And thank you to everybody who prayed and had faith, and who wished wholeheartedly, whether religious or otherwise, that Kyle Rittenhouse would be found not guilty.
Tears of joy are to be shed tonight, and we'll have a drink.
In honor of America, that justice prevailed.
Rightly so.
Thank you all so much for watching.
Check out TimCastIRL tonight.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL at 8 p.m.
This is going to be one interesting conversation and we'll see you all there again.
Thank you all so much.
I'll sit nervously awaiting a verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
It's been going on for some time.
But as I like to say in these midday segments, the Nightmare Dystopia is still happening.
We still have to talk about what's going on as we await that verdict.
And it's actually kind of a funny story.
It's kind of a scary story.
But a few days ago, we heard Austrian police were going around randomly checking people's papers.
I tweeted, the Nazis are back!
Because, you know, that's what they would do.
Papers, please.
Prove you are who you are and fall in line.
It was funny.
Austria announced one of the most insane policies we've ever seen.
A lockdown only for the unvaccinated?
Well, those of us who aren't stupid quickly saw through the ruse.
Now, of course, most of us, I don't believe we are Austrian, but many of you may be, or at least some of you may be.
You see, the ruse was, I don't believe for a second the lockdown will only be for the unvaxxed, and surprise, surprise, we were right.
You see, here's what happens.
They go out and they say, if you are not vaccinated, You have to stay home if the hospitals are at a certain level and will let you know.
Or, you can just get the vaccine and then you can go out and do whatever you want.
Well, a lot of people probably said, okay, you know what, I'll just go out and get the vaccine.
They've constantly, government officials in various countries, tried to play this game where they're like, hey, here's an incentive for you to get the vaccine, and then if people don't do it, they just escalate anyway.
In the U.S., we had a bit of positive reinforcement first.
Lotteries!
Win a million dollars if you get the vaccine!
You get a hundred bucks, you get a free beer!
I think there's a brothel offering free adult relations.
Well, in Austria, they just said if you want to leave your house, get the vaccine.
And it was like three days later, they said, by the way, the lockdown's back for everyone.
How stupid do you have to be?
Seriously.
How stupid do you have to be to think this is ever going to stop until you demand it does?
Now I'm not confident... I'm not confident the Republicans are going to get us anything, so you've got to primary these individuals.
Right now in Virginia, there's the big story, you know, Glenn Youngkin wins and the Democrat loses and everyone's like, how is this possible?
And then Youngkin is like, the first thing I'm going to do is hire some woke people And then we're going to, he states, if counties want to do mandates, it's okay.
Congratulations, La Résistance.
You voted for a guy who's just like, you know, Democrat-lite.
And that's what the Republican establishment tends to be.
You gotta primary these people.
Over in Austria, their little short stint of only the vaxxed can go outside is over, because now they're imposing a nationwide vaccine mandate.
I believe this is the first country to do so.
You could argue the U.S.
has done a government-mandated vaccine mandate.
Or, you know, vaccine program.
But, you know, Joe Biden was like, for businesses with 100 or more people, it wasn't literally like you all must or else.
And the court struck him down.
There's some dark stuff happening in this in the West and on the planet right now as to how it pertains with COVID and this vaccine.
And a lot of people take it to a conspiratorial place.
I can't tell you.
I can't tell you.
Because I don't know.
I can be rational and logical for you and say like, hey, look, when they came out and said 15 days to slow the spread, we all agreed.
We were like, okay, that sounds reasonable.
And then we all decided we'd wait a couple weeks, but then it never stopped.
It extended, it extended, it kept extending.
It's been almost two years, and we've been under some kind of restriction in various parts of the country.
Now, for the most part, the harsh lockdowns ended this summer.
So that's a fair point to say it was actually a year.
But you look at the news articles, just one shot provides you with lots of protection.
They said the vaccine mandate in New York, you just need one dose.
Well, I don't know if they've changed it in New York yet, but then the news came out saying two doses.
Of course, two doses is the full dose.
Then they came out and said two masks.
Then they came out and said, even if you're vaccinated, you gotta wear a mask.
Now they're saying three, in the UK, three.
And I've got, you know what?
I don't like to call out individuals, Uh, in this manner.
But I think it's important to do so.
This is a journalist, someone that I follow, and I mean- I mean no disrespect to this individual, uh, who follows me back, so I'm not gonna say the name, but, you know, you can see the tweet, because I think this is a really, really important context for people to understand what's happening.
This journalist says, folks, you can get your booster today.
And while you're there, get the flu vaccine. And if you haven't gotten a TDAP since
grade school, like most of us, grab that one too. You'll be free to cut yourself on rusty
metal without fear of tetanus. Sweet, sweet freedom. Now, this individual, again, I mean no
disrespect.
You know, I follow this person.
I try to be professional and cordial with other writers for whatever reason.
This individual is from Texas.
But I suppose they live in New York now.
Maybe not, I'm not entirely sure.
But the photo is the vaccine card with three vaccines on it.
And you can see there's a fourth slot.
I'm showing this simply because I saw this as an individual who, without question, said, okay, I'll go get another shot.
That's not the sentiment that I get when I talk to regular people.
You know, I talk to regular working people and they're getting frustrated, they're getting angry.
There's an anecdote I have about someone in my periphery—just be careful about how I describe individuals, protect their privacy—who got vaccinated and then got COVID and got kind of upset.
And we've actually had, at our office, we had two breakthrough cases.
Two employees who were vaccinated ended up getting sick.
They didn't get that sick, but they got sick, noticeably sick.
And many people would argue, well, the severity was much less.
And I'm like, no, there's some other people who weren't vaccinated who were comparably sick.
So I can't tell you that.
What I can say is, it shouldn't be a mandate.
It shouldn't be a lockdown.
It shouldn't be forced.
As I always say, it's a personal decision.
Look, I had a discussion with, um, what were we talking about, on the IRL Podcast Members Only segment, and I said, I don't care what you put in your body.
That's your choice.
And I mean it.
It's not for me to decide.
I'm very libertarian on recreational plant medicine.
We'll call it that.
That's what Cernovich calls it, plant medicine.
There's a lot of things in this country that are illegal.
I do not believe they should be.
Victimless crimes.
If you choose to imbibe alcohol, that's entirely upon you.
Now, if you choose to imbibe alcohol, impair yourself, get in a car, that's a crime that I agree with.
But if you're sitting in your house, you're being responsible, you're at a bar, and you're like, I'm going to drink this.
It's poison, but boy do I feel good.
Well, that's all you.
That's all you.
In some countries, in some places, there's a bunch of other drugs that are illegal in other places.
I think Colorado legalized psilocybin, or shrooms.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think something like that.
I'm very libertarian.
So, here's the way I put it.
You know, you go to the doctor, you ask the doctor, like, hey, my knee hurts, and if he wants to prescribe you Trinidad and Jehovah to pressure, you're not going to ask him what it is.
I mean, you might, but you're not going to know.
So when it comes down to any one of these things, you have the choice to go do whatever you want to do.
And if somebody wants to choose to get 7, 8, 9, 10, you know, however many they eventually mandate, by all means, go ahead and do so.
The problem is the mandates.
The problem is the authoritarianism.
Imagine this.
Imagine the government came out and said, we know that alcohol reduces cortisol levels, you know, when imbibed in reason.
Therefore, we hereby mandate everybody have one beer per day.
They say it's healthy.
Or how about a glass of red wine with resveratrol in it?
It's good for you, right?
It'll keep you healthy.
It's for your own safety.
And then everyone's going around, you try to go to a bar, and they're like, whoa, your blood alcohol level is way too low to come in.
I mean, I don't like that idea.
Don't mess with bodily autonomy.
This is what we get in Austria.
Facing a surge.
Austria will mandate COVID-19 shots and lockdown.
So they lied to you.
They told you, just get the shot, only the unvaccinated have to stay home, and now you do too.
It's a bit unprecedented, isn't it?
They say Austria announced a new national lockdown and a plan to mandate vaccinations.
Imposing a mandate would give Austria one of the world's most stringent vaccine requirements.
Chancellor Alexander Schellenberg said those who didn't comply would likely be fined but gave no other details.
The moves come as vaccinations in Austria have plateaued at one of the lowest rates in Western Europe,
and as hospitals in heavily hit states have warned that their intensive care units are reaching capacity.
But earlier this month, Schellenberg indicated a full lockdown would not be needed,
and instead imposed restrictions only on those not vaccinated.
Well, that was a lie, wasn't it?
Isn't it obvious to all of us?
They said... They were like, if you... First, they said, look, even if you get the vaccine, keep wearing your mask.
And everyone said, what is going on?
And they said, okay, okay.
If you get the vaccine, you don't gotta wear the mask anymore.
And everyone was like, oh, that makes sense.
And everybody rushed out and got vaccinated, and they came right back and said, actually, now you gotta wear masks again.
So this is where we're at.
So long as we just allow people in government, elite billionaires, to dictate, when these people don't know what they're doing.
Or they do, and it's for nefarious purposes.
It's never gonna change.
You'll never get your freedom back.
Man, I'm just... So many people complied, complied, complied, and kept saying, you know, I'm not gonna say anything because it'll all be over.
By the time I get my fifth vaccination, that's when they'll finally open the doors.
There's a tweet, funny viral tweet, where this guy said, the unvaxxed are in for a reckoning because as soon as 5 to 11 year olds are all vaccinated, everything goes back to normal and then they'll regret it because they'll get sick.
There's already been discussions about vaccines for toddlers and infants.
We give vaccines to kids.
I think that's between you and your doctor.
None of my business what you're getting for your kid.
But we do have vaccines for babies.
They go in, they get their inoculations, they come back, they get their boosters.
It's a normal thing.
I got them when I was a kid.
The point is...
Not that there's anything wrong with vaccines.
Granted, the mRNA vaccine is a new type of vaccine technology, depending on how you describe them.
But it's just, you know, parents ultimately have the final say and should be allowed to decide.
Austria, however.
Let me show you a tweet.
Let me show you my vision of the future.
The year is 2025.
You go to the DMV to renew your license.
How many of you have a license right now that will expire in 2025?
Or 2026?
And so you're like, I better get it renewed.
You walk in, and you go online, you look up everything you need, you walk in, you sit down, and you've probably done this.
You know, when you're renewing your license, it's fairly easy.
You hand it to them, and then you give them a piece of mail with your address, and you're good.
So let's do this.
Let me correct that tweet, because maybe I need to be a little bit more...
Just correct as per how it works.
So you need to get a new license because you moved.
You say lived in New Jersey and you moved to West Virginia.
And so you have a driver's license.
You don't got to take a test, but you do need all standard forms of ID.
That means it's like a point system.
Six points.
A credit card is one point.
A passport is two points.
You need a birth certificate or whatever.
So you walk in It's 2025, and you bumble over, and you sit down, and you say, next, and you walk over, and you sit down, and they say, do you have all of your paperwork?
And you go, yeah, I've got my, uh, here's my ID, uh, you know, here's my ID, here's my passport, I have two credit cards, and here's my utility bill.
And she goes, and do you have your vaccine card?
You go, oh yeah, I do.
And you hand it to her and she goes, sir, this says your last shot was three months ago.
And you go, oh, was it three months ago?
Sir, this is not an up-to-date vaccination card.
You're going to have to go and get a booster and then come back.
And they hand you all your paperwork and say, we'll see you tomorrow.
There's a CVS.
No, no, there's a pop-up in the parking lot about a few blocks down.
Go over there and then come back, get it updated.
And you go, I can't believe I didn't get my Vax card updated before I came in.
Must have slipped my mind.
The year is 2050, and a 20-year-old dude is going in to get his license changed, and he walks in with his, you know, mobile app.
He walks up, and they scan it.
They do a retinal scan and a fingerprint check, or, I don't know, maybe that's a little bit too retro, actually.
Biometrics?
Pfft, we don't need that.
He walks in and he gives them his information and everything, and they say, oh, we see that you've gotten your vaccine last week, so you're up to date.
Wonderful.
And do you have, oh, Oh, I'm sorry, you don't have SARS-CoV-23 and the flu on here.
And he goes, oh, I thought we just needed, you know, tetanus, hep, you know, mumps, rubella.
No, no, no, they expanded it, they expanded it.
And you go, ah, jeez.
I'll tell you what's gonna be funny.
You know how when you're getting your ID done, you go online, you go to the DMV's website, and you try and look up what you need?
I know you've all done it because I just did it recently.
You go in there and you're like, okay, what forms of ID do I need?
And it says a passport is worth two points.
It counts as a social security card or birth certificate and an ID.
And you're like, oh, that's really great.
And then an ID counts as two points because of blah, blah, blah.
And then your credit card is one, and you need a total of six.
So you bring in like three things.
And then you bring in proof of address.
You looked up everything you need.
In the future, you're going to go on the website, and it's going to be like, okay, I need six points of ID, and I need eight points of vaccination.
And then you're going to look, and you're going to be like, okay, these are mandatory.
You've got to have tetanus, typhus, hep A. You've got to have yellow fever.
You've got to have mumps.
What is it?
MMR?
So that's mumps.
What is it?
Rubella?
What's the middle one?
I don't know.
I don't remember.
And then you're like, OK, I got all those.
And then you got to have them all within the past year.
And so you go in and you have your Vax app or whatever.
The point is, kids in the future, they're going to grow up with this stuff and they're not going to challenge it.
Have I made a video questioning Social Security numbers?
I mean, think about it.
We all have a registration number with the government.
You're born and then your parents say, OK, before a certain point, we got to go get you your government registration number.
I mean, that's kind of crazy, isn't it?
It's like something out of a sci-fi dystopia.
The government registers your number!
Yeah, well, there you go.
So, I don't make videos where I'm like, can you believe we all have to do this?
No, we all do it, we all don't care.
So in the future, when all these kids are doing this, they all won't care.
They won't know better.
There may be some people.
But I'll tell you something funny.
I saw this story from CNN.
No vaccine required is the latest tactic to attract workers.
That is amazing.
It's amazing.
Should we start putting on our job requests like, you don't need to be vaccinated.
You know what I do like?
I like testing.
I like testing.
That's fine.
When we had our COVID outbreak at our office, I basically said, if you're feeling sick, take a test.
If you test positive, work from home until you test negative.
Because we don't want people to get sick.
I don't care if you have a cold.
I don't care if you have the flu.
I don't care what it is.
If you have a contagious sickness, don't come into work.
And so because COVID is severe as it is, and it is, it is, I'm not saying it's airborne Ebola, but it's really bad.
Ask people who've got it.
I got it.
It was really, really bad.
Ian got it.
He was really bad.
But at the very least, it's just like, look, it's a novel virus.
That's the big deal.
Everybody gets sick because they've no immunity to it.
Well, now they do.
So the way I put it was like, look, we're not doing testing mandates.
We're not going to mandate people who are healthy come in every day and do testing.
Some businesses do that.
No, we're just gonna say if you're feeling ill, don't come in no matter what sickness you have.
Nobody wants to get sick.
And if you know you have COVID, just get a negative test and then come on back.
And then we're not gonna test you again if you're healthy.
I think that's a reasonable restriction to make.
So for the most part, you go about your business like normal and, you know, if you get sick, you stay home.
What's the big deal?
Well, we don't require vaccinations here at TimCast Media.
And a bunch of companies don't.
And apparently, it's attracting workers.
CNN.
Of course, CNN reports.
In the search for workers in the tight labor market, companies have courted new hires with the promise of higher wages, sign-on bonuses, ample vacation time, and childcare.
The latest?
No vaccine required.
That three-word phrase is popping up across the online job listings as businesses seek to turn the federal government's proposed vaccine decree on its head and attract employees.
You know what?
A non-vaccine requirement is actually fairly interesting as it pertains to a job hire.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but just hear me out.
I have this story I like to tell people about a friend of mine who hired some college grads.
He was doing social media management.
He hired a couple college grads and they couldn't do the job.
They were struggling.
They'd constantly call saying, what do I do?
And he was like, solve the problem.
I hired you to do this job.
You run Instagram.
And he had to fire him.
He's like, if you can't do it, I'm sorry.
I have to let you go.
So then he tries to find better people, hire some more college grads.
Same problem.
Well, now he's running out of money because they're not doing their job properly.
It's a true story, by the way.
And he then hires a couple people who wanted to be actors who had moved from Middle America to California.
He's paying them substantially less than he paid the college grads because now he's broke and he's like, I guess I'll reach deeper into the barrel.
So, no phone calls.
No problems.
He gets worried.
He's like, well, certainly they'd call me for something.
He comes back to the office and he goes, uh, how was today?
We got it all covered, boss.
Everything was great.
Were there any issues?
Yeah, one of our clients wanted to post an image.
We talked him through it.
We ended up getting a better resolution image.
Everything was fine.
He's like, really?
You didn't need my help?
They're like, no.
And what he realized was people who Knew what they wanted they left their home in search of
adventure took initiative and the people who had college degrees just did what?
They were told the college degree was actually a predictor of docile and drone like behavior
So I think about it this way Someone who's not vaccinated
Not necessarily sure that they'll be smarter than anybody else. They may just be lazy
They may be conspiracy theorists, but there is something to be said for
Seeing that someone says I'm looking for a job where vaccines aren't required and then asking them why?
line.
According to, there's a study published, PhDs were, I believe, the most likely to not be vaccinated.
And there was another study, I think it was Harvard, that said those who were refusing to be vaccinated were likely to be more informed.
You see?
I'm not saying it's a fact, and we've got people who work here who are vaccinated and unvaccinated, and everybody knows the news.
I mean, they listen to me talk about it all day.
We've had guests on TimCast IRL, mostly libertarian, moderate, conservative, and a good portion of them, probably half, are all vaccinated.
I just don't care.
I mean, you do whatever you want to do, whatever.
Don't get me sick.
Don't show up if you're sick.
It's fine.
But I wonder, if you're looking at a resume, and they say they're not vaccinated, is that a predictor of someone who's likely going to have a better understanding of current events and be more likely to think critically, or more importantly, regardless of how smart or stupid they may be, is it a sign that they've chosen for themselves?
They take initiative.
And if that's the case, maybe they will be better workers.
And if that's the case, maybe in this tight labor market, companies that say no vaccine required are likely going to get more talent.
The one thing I can tell you is that if you keep complying, you will just end up like Austria.
They'll lock you down harder than ever before.
Take a look at Florida.
Some of the lowest rates of COVID in the country.
California, according to one story, has twice the rate of COVID as Florida, even though Florida has no mandates.
They've been open for a long time, no mask mandates, no vax mandates, monoclonal antibodies, and the South seems to be doing fairly well.
There's a viral tweet from a guy who was like, can anyone explain to me why the Southern states all have low instances of COVID but everyone else?
And it's like, huh.
Interesting question.
It could very well be the weather.
I mean, seriously, it's warmer, it's hotter, it's murkier, and maybe COVID transmits better in the cold.
I honestly don't know.
Or it could be Texas and southern states and Florida have none of these restrictions, so people are able to get sunlight, get vitamin D, exercise, and live their lives.
And because they're more likely to be outdoors, they're less likely to actually interact with the virus.
Okay, Austria.
You're playing a game of Russian Roulette, because the data is available.
Maybe it's not really about them caring, or maybe they're just completely inept.
But there you go.
What greater bit of evidence that if you comply, they will just smack you down harder.
You give them an inch, and they will take 100 miles.
That's what they did in Austria.
That's what they did here.
That's what they're doing in the UK.
That's what they're doing in France.
That's what they're doing in Germany.
That's what they're going to keep doing everywhere.
So, that being said, I really got to get back to watching what's going on with the Rittenhouse trial, and I know all of you do too, but thanks for watching something as we're staring at a courtroom video with an emblem and nothing else.
4 p.m.
I have a major, major story.
Maybe something will happen in between with Rittenhouse and the verdict, but I've got a crazy story for you.
I will see you all at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out.
Rumors are swirling about what is going on in the Kyle Rittenhouse jury deliberations.
One such rumor is that the defense believes the jury is currently split 6-6, which means the jury will be hung, there will be a mistrial, and then there will be a retrial.
This may be why the defense has filed a motion, or a verbal motion, for a mistrial.
What we saw from the defense early was a request, a motion, for a mistrial with prejudice, which most of you know means the case is over, it's a mistrial, and Kyle Rittenhouse cannot be charged again for the same crimes.
But the defense then came out and said, we'll take a mistrial.
Stands to reason they believe the jury is hung, and it's likely going in this direction anyway.
Now, some argue that a mistrial for Rittenhouse would be good, because now they know the state's entire case, and it has exposed the state's cheating, Which will advantage the defense in having a retrial.
I think it's fair to say.
The judge should rule on the motion for a mistrial with prejudice immediately.
He should grant this motion.
Kyle Rittenhouse should be free to go.
I don't know if that's going to happen, but the other rumor is that there is a single jury holdout.
A Karen, as it were, who feels entitled and says, no, no, no, I want to go through the evidence.
Well, according to memos that were given by this juror to the judge, it appears this individual has a perspective based on the prosecution's view of what happened.
Because there's a way they framed things.
So notably, the defense says that Kyle Rittenhouse, you know, dropped a fire extinguisher.
The prosecution says he placed it, he put it down.
And a memo says, please prepare the video of Kyle Rittenhouse putting down the fire extinguisher.
Which stands to reason they believe the prosecution's version of events.
Now, it's minor, we don't know exactly what's gonna happen, but the defense is willing to take a retrial straight up.
But I don't think that's what should happen.
Because we have new information.
The identity of the mysterious Jump Kick Man has been revealed.
And apparently, the name of this witness, and this individual who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse, has been known to the prosecutors, and was withheld from the defense.
We are beyond constitutional violations, my friends.
I mean, it has been stacking up.
And if the judge doesn't rule mistrial with prejudice, I believe our justice system is done.
You look at some of these stories, man.
You look at the torture going on for the January 6th defendants.
And it's funny because we talked to people on IRL and they say, you guys realize the federal prison system has always been this way.
And I'm like, you don't got to tell me.
I've been against private prisons and I've been against, for the most part, our entire prison system since I was a teenager.
There are a lot of conservatives who believe if you don't commit a crime, you'll be fine.
And then we end up with a bunch of innocent people getting raided by the feds.
You end up with Kyle Rittenhouse.
You end up with people being tortured in these jails.
And, you know, what's funny is the left won't come to defend them, even though they've typically been the, you know, prison reform people.
I'm absolutely all about prison reform.
Let's go through the list before we tell the story.
The prosecution committed a grave constitutional violation against Kyle Rittenhouse by questioning his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in front of the jury.
The judge snapped.
How dare you?
That alone, he said, you're over the line.
The prosecution attempted to admit into evidence, with the jury present, evidence the judge had ruled inadmissible.
The prosecution provided the wrong video to the defense.
There is a high-resolution drone video with a strange format, and they gave the defense a low-resolution version, crippling the defense's ability to craft an argument around the provocation narrative.
The prosecution claims high-resolution video shows that Kyle Rittenhouse raised his gun and pointed it in the direction of the Zeminskis.
The defense, given a grainy video, couldn't see anything, and probably just assumed, this video's too grainy to make that argument anyway, so we're not gonna need to say much to the jury other than, this video can't be seen.
But then, the prosecution says, we have an enhanced version.
And the defense argued that's CGI.
That's right.
The prosecution then got it admitted into evidence, CGI, computer generated imagery.
She never should have been allowed.
But they took advantage of the fact that the judge didn't understand this, and the defense wasn't smart enough to explain to the judge.
A very simple point.
Your Honor.
The video and footage that they claim is enhanced is not video or photo of the night in question.
It's video and photo generated by a computer a couple weeks ago.
And then if he says, well, bring in an expert, I'd say to the expert, when was this file generated?
And the expert would say, two weeks ago in my lab.
So this file was not created on August 25th, 2020.
No, it was not.
Your Honor, this is not video from the night in question.
That got admitted.
That gave the state the ability to get the provocation instruction.
Well, now we're on to the next grave constitutional violation, the withholding of evidence.
Maurice Freeland, Jump Kick Man.
Throughout the trial, they were referring to him as Jump Kick Man because they didn't know who he was.
According to Fox News, get this, Freeland approached the prosecution to testify in exchange for immunity for other charges, including a DOI, but they rejected the offer, according to a source familiar with the discussion.
This is crazy.
Tucker Carlson has a longer opinion piece on this, and he says, So that means that Rittenhouse's defense attorneys never got to cross-examine this man or introduce any evidence about his behavior that night.
That's not a small thing.
According to the Daily Mail, new reporting today, the man's name is Maurice Freeland.
Freeland has admitted that he attacked Rittenhouse moments before another man, Anthony Huber, started hitting him in the head with a skateboard.
Now, what you guys need to understand about Anthony Huber, Is that he ran up... I could be wrong.
I'm pretty sure he ran up and hit Kyle with the skateboard.
Kyle keeps running.
He deflects it.
He deflects it.
Someone goes up and hits him in the back of the head.
He eventually falls down.
Anthony Huber then comes back and hits him with the skateboard again, trying to grab the gun.
Check this out.
Tucker Carlson says that means the state knew all along who Maurice Freeland was,
but they withheld that information from Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers. And as a result of that,
Kyle Rittenhouse was deprived of his constitutional right under the confrontation clause
to challenge the accuser in open court. That's not supposed to happen. It can't happen.
And that's not the only relative evidence that was withheld from Kyle Rittenhouse's
lawyers during the trial. He says we aired some drone footage on the night of August 31st, 2020.
At the time, we were interviewing a lawyer called John Pierce, who was then representing Kyle Rittenhouse.
The drone footage that aired on the show has become part of the Rittenhouse case.
Prosecutors claim that footage shows Kyle Rittenhouse raising his rifle in a provocative manner at an accused arsonist called Joshua Zeminski.
The footage doesn't exactly show that, if you look at it carefully, but that's what they're claiming anyway.
The prosecution's theory of this case is that Rosenbaum began chasing Kyle Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Zeminski's.
Conveniently for the state, however, Zeminsky, like Maurice Freeland, never testified in this case.
Prosecutors charged Zeminsky with arson and then delayed his trial so he would not be available to testify at the Rittenhouse trial.
By the way, this is relevant too.
Authorities say Zeminsky brought a gun to the right and fired a shot before Rittenhouse ever pulled his own trigger.
How's that for relevant?
But jurors never got to hear Joshua Zeminsky explain that.
Tucker says the drone footage we aired on this show was never provided to Rittenhouse's defense team.
Instead, they got a blurrier, low-grade copy of the tape, and it was cropped.
One is a high-quality image, one is low-quality.
There's no comparison between the two.
The defense had no way to analyze the high-quality footage during trial and provide it to their video experts.
They couldn't verify the footage is accurate or make any arguments about what it shows.
They just had to accept the prosecution's version.
Now the defense only realized this after one of the prosecutors admitted out loud, apparently by accident, he admitted that his version of the drone footage was, quote, much clearer than the footage the defense had.
The Zeminskys.
I believe, uh, Joshua Zeminsky.
That was his name, right?
He's running behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, and he fires his gun into the air.
That is, that's criminal.
You can't do that.
Um, he's being criminally charged.
It would have been great if he could testify as to whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Zeminsky.
Zeminsky could testify.
But as the defense accurately pointed out, they don't control Fifth Amendment rights.
The state does.
Isn't that amazing?
A prosecutor can come to you and say, we want you to testify.
And you'll say, I plead the fifth.
And they'll say, we grant you immunity in all charges stemming from this case.
And they'll hand you the form and they'll sign it.
Now you are compelled to testify because you can't incriminate yourself.
The defense can't do that.
So with the Zeminskys, They, uh, the prosecution in their closing argument said, well, we can't get him to testify because they have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
And the point in question is, the judge was basically saying, I don't see the Zeminskis as complaining witnesses.
They didn't come in here and say, he pointed a weapon at us.
That would be a crime.
And they said, well, you know, we have a right to remain silent.
And the defense said, your honor, no, they don't.
They do only as it pertains to us getting to testify, but the state could grant them immunity and get that testimony instead.
Charged him with arson, delayed the trial.
Much like, I believe they did that to Gage, no, not Gage Grosskreutz.
Gage Grosskreutz has his charges dismissed.
The corruption here is palpable.
And the prosecutor knew who Maurice Freeland was, offered to testify in exchange for immunity, and they didn't give the information to the defense.
So the defense was unable to investigate who this guy was, what he was doing.
Maybe there's something here.
Maybe he should testify.
Maybe they could subpoena him and watch him plead the fifth.
But they knew who one of the attackers was.
But they, once again, Either withheld, manipulated evidence, just put it plainly, committed a grave constitutional violation against Kyle Rittenhouse.
The judge must declare a mistrial with prejudice.
Now, let's talk about what may be happening anyway.
First and foremost, the judge said there would be a day of reckoning on this drone footage.
I think it's a strong possibility that today the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice.
He may just declare a mistrial.
It's the easy out.
Let's see if this judge has a spine.
He might.
He might not.
If it were me, I'd have declared a mistrial with prejudice already.
I'm not a judge, I'm not a lawyer, and maybe that's an irrational, you know, impassioned, I refuse to stick, you know.
But when I look at all of the things that have been done by the prosecution, the grave constitutional violations, the words of the judge himself, I would not tolerate any of this.
I would say to the prosecutors, you have defiled this court.
You have spat in the face of all that we hold valuable and true in our legal system.
You have besmirched the good name of this court.
Get out.
Mistrial with prejudice granted.
But the judge says this is the jury's trial.
Your Honor, how could it be the jury's trial when evidence was withheld, manipulated, And when they've questioned the 5th Amendment rights of the defendant on the stand, the jury is probably confused at this point.
Which brings me to, has jury foreperson gone rogue and is holding back acquittal?
The judge may, and this is what he said, he's going to wait for a verdict.
Because if a not guilty verdict comes in, then the motions are moot.
And that may be good news for the defense.
If they do come back and say, not guilty, he'll be like, you don't need a mistrial, you don't need a retrial, it's done, goodbye, have a nice day.
And it absolves him of any responsibility.
But will the judge have a spine?
Because if the jury is being hung up by maybe a 6-6 split, if it's being held up by the fact that there are protesters outside, the very same people, and what I mean by people is not individuals, the group, the ideology, the movement, the very same movement that burned down your city, Wait till you see my later segment today about... I'll just tell you.
I mean, the New York Times withholding, covering up the story.
People being brutalized in the street.
Those people are outside.
The jury knows it.
And then they're being told to cross them.
The judge says, well, we've blacked out the bus so that they don't see one side or the other.
No one fears a right-wing mob coming out and attacking jurors.
It's the right that wants the system to work and they want to uphold the values and make sure that the businesses don't burn to the ground.
It's the left that wants to destroy all of our institutions.
From the ashes of the old, we will build anew.
So the jurors know it's not the right.
They fear the left.
The judge should have declared it already.
Well, maybe he still will.
Here's what's going on.
We have this from Andrew Branca, probably the best legal analysis on self-defense, especially as it pertains to this case, considering not only is he very knowledgeable, but he's an expert on self-defense, and this is a self-defense case.
What better analysis?
He writes, has jury foreperson gone rogue in holding back acquittal?
Now, he goes on to mention MSNBC.
We all know MSNBC's been banned from the building from trying to expose the jurors.
Mistrial with prejudice, please.
Juror requests to take jury instructions home.
This is weird.
When the jury was brought into the courtroom for purposes of dismissal, shortly after 4 p.m.
Wisconsin time, Judge Schroeder imprudently asked if any of them had any questions.
One did.
A woman juror asked if she could be permitted to take home a copy of the 36 or so pages of jury instructions.
The judge looked over at the parties, and although the state appeared to make no particular signal, defense attorney Mark Richards shook his head slightly, but observably, in the negative.
Despite this, Judge Schroeder announced that he would agree to the request and that the same option would be extended to all of the jurors.
Whether only one juror who made the request only took home the instructions or whether multiple or even all jurors did so is unknown.
Frankly, it's rather remarkable that any juror who had already been struggling with the instructions for more than seven hours today alone, as well as the two prior days, would be interested in continuing to work with that at home in the evenings.
Frankly, I think it was a bad call both for Judge Schroeder to agree to this request, as well as to do so in the manner he did.
First of all, if he wants all the jurors to return to deliberations fresh and rested tomorrow morning, the last thing he should want is any jurors continuing to work on these instructions alone in the night.
Second, allowing the jurors to take the instructions home encourages what lawyers call the dictionary game.
This occurs when the jurors start to do their own research into what various terms and instructions might mean, including looking up words in the dictionary.
The trouble with encouraging such behavior by the jurors is that the word, like, say, provocation, has a specific narrow legal meaning, the context of the jury instructions that differ from the general, broader, common-use meaning one might find in a dictionary.
Jurors are not supposed to make use of outside resources to inform their arriving at a verdict, but permitting them to take the jury instructions home encourages exactly that.
And furthermore, prejudice.
Malice.
They mean very different things in the legal sense.
So people often say, this is really interesting, when it comes to defamation, they say you have to prove actual malice against a public figure.
And what the layman believes, that means you have to prove the person was acting maliciously and they were out to get you.
What it actually means is that, specifically, I believe, they knew they were lying.
Not that they had any ill will towards you, but that they knew they were lying.
And prejudice.
It's really funny to look on Twitter and people say that they've made a motion for a mistrial with prejudice, and people think prejudice means, like, bigotry towards, you know, a person for some specific characteristic or belief.
Like, a mistrial BECAUSE there was prejudice.
And then they'll have the trial again, it's like, no, that means they can't retry this.
That's fascinating.
People don't know the legal terms.
Neither do I. I learned this stuff from, like, reading legal analysis.
I am no lawyer!
But at least I know a little bit about that and can tell you, very simply, what Andrew Branca says.
Legal definitions, not the same as regular definitions.
He goes on to say, third, the judge addressed this question from the juror in front of lawyers
and looked to them for a response. That means Mark Richards shaking his head,
indicating he preferred the jurors not to be given the instructions despite the request could be
observed by the jurors. Richards appearing to prefer the denial of a juror's request could
be perceived negatively by that juror and others, creating a bias against the defense.
The judge should instead have either discussed the request with lawyers while the jury was removed
from the courtroom or more conveniently held an impromptu whispered bench conference with
the jury present but outside the range of hearing.
Next, I have my suspicion of what, or rather who, is holding up the verdict in this case.
That is, juror 54, four-person, is the holdout.
He says, I have a growing suspicion that this jury has not yet arrived at a unanimous verdict of acquittal only because the resistance of Juror 54, a woman who also happens to be the foreperson who seems to be the holdout against acquittal.
The jury selection risked to Kyle was always going to be a mask Karen type, usually a leftist political persuasion, bossy entitled, and status sensitive.
This is very, very speculative and I don't necessarily agree with this.
I do agree with the analysis that this is a prosecution biased individual who is refusing to allow this to go to acquittal.
He says, There has been one apparently female juror who on several occasions can be overheard being unusually familiar with Judge Schroeder.
Not in the sense of knowing him personally, but in the sense of engaging in a relaxed discussion that one does not usually find between a juror and trial judge.
Then we have the jury note from yesterday asking for access to Exhibit 5 of the drone footage and related evidence.
It was written by Juror 54, the foreperson and apparent woman.
The note says, Please prepare Mr. Rosenbaum shooting Event 1.
And then it says, FBI Ariel with all, uh, what is, I can't read that.
P-O-I-O, what does that say?
I don't know.
Marked drone video.
Zoomed in image still after Mr. Rittenhouse put down fire extinguisher.
Full event video, regular slow motion.
We will request when ready.
The tone of that note suggests to me that the person who wrote it is accustomed to giving orders to underlings, personal assistants, staff, household help.
And here, the note is being addressed in this tone to the trial judge, as if the judge were a staffer to the jury foreperson.
Then, this evening, we had the very unusual request to be permitted to take jury instructions home made by a single juror, a female juror.
I suspect that all of this conduct is that of Juror 54, the female foreperson of this jury, who I suspect is precisely the kind of mask-carrying, left-leaning, bossy, entitled, and status-sensitive juror Who would be most likely to hold out against acquittal?
Finally, my friend Jack Posobiec was kind enough to remind me that during jury selection, I made a particular note of Juror 54 at the time, as I was live commenting right here at Legal Insurrection.
54 knows some of the witnesses named, but could set that aside.
I've also heard from sources in a position to know that when polling was done around jury selection, Perspective jurors who knew any participants in the August 2020 riots, which would likely include some of the witnesses, tended to trend 75% against acquittal.
That's all a guess, but one informed by some experience with both juries and mass care and types.
Here's the video in question.
So that means to say, during jury selection, Bronka noted that this individual may be biased, and they're going to allow it anyway.
This person now appears to be the foreperson, maybe, not entirely sure.
But it stands to reason an activist got on the jury and is holding it up.
Will the judge have the spine to say, you've made a mockery of my trial, of my courtroom, to the prosecution?
Or will he be ever so spineless?
I don't know.
I actually like Judge Schroeder.
He seems like a good dude.
He really does.
And the media's been very unfair to him, smearing him, lying about him.
But he may just come out to be someone who goes, you know, look, we had a juror who was like, I can't be on the jury because I believe in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Amazing.
This is why conservatives lose.
That's not bias.
The Constitution says you have a right to keep and bear arms.
That is not bias.
That's exactly who should be on the jury.
Someone who recognizes our rights under the Constitution.
What are you going to do?
I can't be on the jury because I believe that the defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Well, people did!
You can't question that.
It's amazing what people will say.
Will the judge be the type to say, I have seen enough and you have besmirched this courtroom, or will he be like that guy and say, look, it's not for me to decide, the jury said so, and you know, we know those grave constitutional violations, the defendant, he can appeal.
Have fun in prison while you're figuring it out.
Because that's what will happen.
You know what the problem we have in this country is?
If I were the judge, if I was the judge in any one of these cases, Chauvin or this one, and I believed that there was a grave constitutional violation, like he has already said, you think I'm scared of these extremists, these ideologues?
You think I'm scared of being cancelled?
Never.
Never gonna happen.
Now I'll tread carefully, and that's where I respect the judge.
Because far be it from me, I try to keep things family-friendly on IRL, I try to make sure we take more serious discussions that threaten the risk of getting banned to our members-only segment, because the idea is we want to market and show people hear the conversations, but you can't have it in front, the speakeasy's in back.
So I can absolutely respect that the judge won't be as brazen as I'm saying right now.
And, you know, by all means, I'm worthy of criticism in that capacity.
So I can respect the judge saying, we'll wait for the jury.
But there is a line for me and for everybody else.
There are certain conversations that they have to happen in the public.
They have to happen on YouTube, regardless of what YouTube thinks.
Because if it's the truth, it's the truth.
And there are certain lines that I'm not willing to cross.
But there also is reasonable tact.
And that is, if I can keep this up and running, this show, I can tell you to go to TimCast.com for the members-only segments where you're gonna get more unfiltered conversations.
Rest assured, our opinions don't change.
It's just certain subject matter and we swear a whole lot.
But that being said, the way I described it, if Google came to me with- they emailed me and said, we're now requiring all of our, you know, YouTubers to send in their proof of vaccination, otherwise they'll be banned, I'd be banned.
Because there's a line.
There's tact, and then there's a line.
I would not give in to something that absolutely violates my principles.
As I often describe it, and again, far from perfect by all means, you can criticize this.
If I have a hundred things to say, I won't sacrifice ninety-nine for one.
I'll make sure that one thing that needs to be said can happen in a place where people can be told that's where it is.
Ninety-nine is still very valuable for everybody.
If the judge's attitude here is, I can't just make a mistrial with prejudice because they'd burn the city down and it would create major conflict, I need the jury to come to a conclusion on their own and hopefully it's the right one.
But if it were me, to be reasonable, I would absolutely have mistrial with prejudice right there ready and waiting.
Maybe it's a little bit tough guy hyperbole for me to be like, I'd say immediately I'd bang the gavel and the reality is I'd probably be very much like this Judge Schroeder.
Very much would be.
Maybe I'd be a little bit more brazen because you can tell I get a little bit more hot-headed than he is.
He seems to be a good judge.
But I will say this.
If we do not get a mistrial with prejudice, we're in trouble.
We really, really are.
And if this poor person comes back and convinces them to finally just say, whatever, guilty, I don't care, then we are all irrevocably damaged.
I certainly hope that doesn't happen.
We'll see as the day progresses.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
You're not going to want to miss my later segment.
I've already got this big story.
It's about, for those that are listening on the podcast, you've heard this, but James O'Keefe.
What the FBI did with the New York Times.
The New York Times is defying a court order and a cover-up of the riots by the New York Times.
