Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 16, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

01:59:50

Rittenhouse Closing Arguments RECAP - Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's a bit late tonight because my computer crashed at the very moment I was trying to enable slow mode, which I find relatively ironic.
	People, this is a short notice one, but we cannot have the last day of trial.
	First of all, sorry, back it up.
	How's my audio?
	F for good, A for really, whatever.
	Audio's on.
	If there's a problem, let me know.
	We cannot go through the last day of trial and not have...
	A stream to discuss what we witnessed today.
	In terms of what I would call a catastrophic train wreck of a rebuttal of a closing argument from the prosecution, I see Barnes in the house, so I'll get there in a second.
	Standard disclaimers, folks.
	My volume is a little low.
	Hold on.
	Mic, audio, there it is.
	Yes, let's go to 60. We'll go to 70, people.
	We'll go to 70. See how that works.
	Okay, this looks better.
	Some of the chats, which quite clearly are coming from Nick Ricada, I cannot read or bring up.
	Alright, let's see.
	Barnes is in the house, people, and he's wearing a fantastic tie, I dare say.
	This little black slot in the background is driving me crazy right here, but when I bring Robert in, there we go.
	It disappears.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	So, anyone in the chat, tell me if our audio is off.
	Robert, so what did we witness today?
	There's a lot to cover.
	Do we agree that the rebuttal was an abject train wreck of a disaster of a rebuttal before we get there?
	Yeah, the guy who was imitating Chris Farley, I live in a van down by the river, was clearly so agitated by the closing arguments of Richards and by evidence of his own misconduct that he basically was arguing at the jury.
	You started out with Binger pointing the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger.
	And it finished with Krauss, or Kraut, whatever his name is.
	Sauerkraut, maybe be a better name.
	Basically threatening and arguing to the jury, you better do what we tell you to do, while making, again, false statements of fact and law, as Binger did.
	But primarily, credit to Richards.
	For Richards, that, I believe, was probably the best closing argument he's ever given.
	For Richards, it was a 10 out of 10. What Richards does well is facts.
	The second thing Richards does well that had really been underutilized, I thought, through the trial was he's like a blue-collar guy at a Kenosha bar telling you a story.
	And when he does it in that way, uses that lingo, uses that verbiage, havoc and whatnot, then I think he's at his most effective to that jury.
	And he employed that very...
	Thoroughly throughout that.
	And some people are wondering, you know, why did he go through witness by witness?
	It's not his natural skill to narrate.
	He's not a narrator by nature.
	He's not a narrative person, not a storyteller.
	But what he's good at is facts.
	So by putting the witness by witness and then video by video, what they did is they helped create his ability to keep his facts within the narrative structure.
	And so that employed his strengths.
	And then third...
	There was a lot of work over the weekend.
	I probably thought I would never say this, but I would like to thank Darth Crypto.
	You know, it's not for his contribution to the defense because he did contribute.
	There are a range of people giving ideas to the defense over the weekend.
	I was a little bit worried that some good...
	It's very hard for a lot of defense lawyers to take ideas from other parties.
	Also, sometimes you go into a cocoon and you don't listen to advice and ideas.
	I think that's a limitation on your capabilities.
	You can always reject an idea, but you might as well stay as open-minded as possible to hear multiple perspectives.
	And he did a great job incorporating all of the ideas that had been contributed over the weekend.
	So there was a focus, like they weren't ready on Friday to deal, particularly with the provocation evidence.
	They weren't ready on Friday to rebut that.
	There was a lot of great work in the court of public opinion and by a range of counsel and other people who are giving ideas to the defense team by various means.
	And clearly it got to them because they were ready today.
	Because, for example, they incorporated the yellow pants man.
	Didn't say Kyle pointed the gun at him.
	He said he pointed the gun like this.
	Richards highlighted that repeatedly, which was great to see.
	Second, that blurry photo, that blob of a photo was a joke and a crock.
	But in particular, it required you to shift hands from Kyle to magically become left-handed in a gun that, unlike what Kropp said, is actually a right-handed gun.
	There are right-handed and left-handed guns.
	Another lie they just told in their rebuttal.
	And anybody that's on the jury that knows about guns will know they lied about that.
	You know, it's a dumb lie to tell.
	It's what happens when you have prosecutors that are so used to lying and getting away with it, they don't know when they're going to get caught.
	But he highlighted that.
	He highlighted the fact that, in fact, that's a mere reflection is what you're seeing, not a gun being pointed, how it went from color to black and white, all of that.
	He hit every single point that had been missed on Friday he made today.
	Then on top of that...
	I wanted thematically and some other people wanted thematically to incorporate that the reason why this happened is primarily because of criminal rioters doing criminal behavior.
	But the reason why they were able to be there was because the police and the National Guard were not there when they should have been.
	And that it was their abandonment of the scene so that only kids like Kyle were left to protect people and to protect property and to protect dreams and ideas.
	And he incorporated that aspect into it.
	That there's aspects that...
	Kyle's story is a story of bravery and courage.
	It's not a story of recklessness and criminal behavior.
	That's the story of the people who attacked him that night.
	And to highlight going through the video streams, because that has always been Kyle's best defense, the independent video evidence.
	And then to highlight the two most dramatic moments at trial, which was McGinnis rebutting Binger and saying, yes, you don't know what Rosenbaum was thinking.
	He said, F you and lunge for the gun.
	And then the second key highlight from Grosskreutz, elicited on cross by the defense of...
	Yeah, when my hands were up, he didn't shoot.
	It was only when I went for the gun and pointed at his head that he did.
	So that was critical to do.
	I've had defense lawyers and other people email me that would have liked a different presentation.
	That's not within Richard's wheelhouse to do.
	He did what he is good at, and he did the very best version of that, and credit to him for doing so.
	I would have liked a little more objections, but again, that's not his style.
	But I was glad he objected to sauerkraut.
	And, you know, occasionally made some points with Little Binger.
	But when, you know, sauerkraut gets off his rails, he just can't handle himself to an objection.
	Twice.
	Oh, by the way, you're on mute.
	Okay, no, I'm back.
	It was not hilarious, but I'm going to bring up Little Rock here who says, I have never seen a train wreck to such this degree in the several years I've been practicing law.
	I would love to have this prosecutor on the other side during my trials.
	Well, you know what, Robert?
	I mean, let's back it up to the beginning of the day.
	The first thing they were adjudicating on this morning, I forget now.
	It was something that we predicted last night, which was the gun charge.
	Would be dismissed because it has always been legal in Wisconsin for a 17-year-old to have a rifle.
	It's never been illegal.
	It's never been criminal.
	It's the plain language of the law.
	It's clear by any reasoned interpretation of it.
	It fits within its long history.
	It understands that the only gun control effort was about, you know, it's never been legal to have a sawed-off shotgun or short rifle, short stock.
	Basically, that's what that is, short-stock rifle, or other guns of that nature.
	Truly, weapons that are seen as criminally intended weapons.
	But it's always been legal for teenagers, particularly 17-year-olds.
	They don't have to have a hunting license.
	They don't have to be in the presence of an adult.
	That's for people younger than that.
	People that are 17 are allowed to have a rifle or a shotgun, period.
	Always been the case.
	I call it the Wisconsin farm boy exception.
	It's always been there, and the judge said yes, and dismissed that charge with prejudice to the nervous whining and screaming of the leftist press.
	So now, because this is the deal.
	Someone said in the response to my tweet, I posted the highlight, who would have thought that a gun coming off the shelf would be compliant with federal regulations or whatever the law is?
	And people don't really understand that.
	What was that issue here?
	Would be a long-barreled rifle, which would be shortened, hence the sawed-off shotgun, to make it more concealable, etc.
	A modified rifle, whereas this is off-the-shelf, compliant with law.
	The question is this, Robert, and a lot of people are asking the question in responses, comments.
	How does that not become malicious prosecution, where they were knowingly pursuing the prosecution of a crime?
	Which they knew was so baseless that they just abandoned it without much of a fight after two weeks of trial.
	How is that, at the very least, on that particular charge, not potentially malicious prosecution?
	It is because some people were saying that, well, they must have had probable cause because it survived a motion to dismiss.
	But that's not what the court said.
	The court said, I didn't know what kind of rifle it was because that was not included in the probable cause statement.
	And they knew for...
	They knew all along, but they definitely knew within a few days.
	But they knew that, in fact, it was legal all the way through.
	So their only justification is that they had a, in my view, frivolous interpretation of the statute, which had no legal precedent whatsoever in Wisconsin.
	So to me, they did prosecute him without probable cause.
	And if you prosecute someone without probable cause who's been adjudged innocent of those charges, either by a dismissal with prejudice or by a jury verdict, either one suffices legally, then you can bring a civil suit for malicious prosecution.
	Because it's not as though there are any variations of an unmodified AR-15 that come off the shelf that are not compliant with the law.
	So it's not like because, oh, it's one of those illegal models or an illegal variation.
	It would have had to have been, in order to violate the law, manually shortened to violate the law.
	And so by any account, that rifle had not been modified that anybody knew.
	And if they thought it had been modified, presumably...
	That would be the probable cause, and not just carrying it.
	So, okay, on that particular charge, there might be a claim or a case for malicious prosecution.
	What I take for granted is that the judge understands what's going on here, but a jury might not understand the full impact of their abandoning that claim.
	Did Richards make it clear enough in closing?
	He could have made that clear, but mostly what it did is strip Binger of one of his best arguments.
	Because his argument for provocation was substantially predicated on a combination of the unlawful presence from the curfew charge that had already also been dismissed for failure of evidentiary proof by the prosecution and the unlawful gun charge.
	You remove both of those and what's left?
	He's left with pretending Kyle pointed the gun at people.
	And that's why it was critical that Richards rebut those aspects, and that he did very well.
	Yellow Pants Man is pointing down.
	He didn't say Kyle was pointing like this.
	He's pointing down.
	That's not pointing a gun at anyone.
	That's not provocation.
	The photo evidence was blown up, and what was left was Binger trying to say, well, here's this real quick video, pretend he pointed at somebody.
	And that's where, of course, their failure to call any witness to testify to that effectively created issues.
	And there's some evidence that still came in that ideally would not have come in, in terms of the Exhibit 41 the defense got in where somebody's speculating that.
	But the prosecution did actually a pretty poor job.
	Sauerkraut mentioned it in his little checklist.
	Hold on a second.
	It's very easy to sit back behind a camera and pick on other people's bad habits.
	Things like that.
	He's a bad guy and he's a terrible prosecutor.
	We can pick on him all we want.
	You try to put innocent kids in prison, you got it coming.
	And people have to appreciate what they were doing here, but we'll get to that.
	Kraut.
	Kraus.
	Is it Kraut or Kraus?
	I know him now as Sauerkraut.
	So Kraut, he makes a point, checks it off his list.
	Anybody thinks that that is high school debate level faking professionalism and the points he was making, which we're going to get to in a bit.
	So they dropped that charge first thing in the morning, which means that basically everything the media has been saying all along has been false, but...
	Call it justifiably false, because they're relying on the prosecutors who, at the very least, press charges based on an alleged violation of that law, so they didn't know better.
	But they dropped that charge the morning of, which means he was lawfully entitled to hold the firearm, to carry the firearm, didn't cross state lines with the other issue, and now they're just left with what they are now raising as the provocation response to the self-defense privilege.
	We talked about the provocation last night a little bit, but fleshed that out again because they said provocation as though if you ever provoke, you are allowed to be killed.
	In no uncertain terms, indefinitely.
	So walk us through what you described yesterday in terms of the provocation response to the defense of self-defense and its limits.
	So it's what we discussed last night, that Binger would not limit provocation to the legal limits of provocation.
	So what Binger did was, of course, use the broader references and broader language of provocation so that jurors on their side of the aisle, and that's what they ended up arguing really just to hoping there's jurors on their side of the aisle, that everything Kyle did was provocation.
	Legally, that's not the case.
	But that's what we said Binger was going to do, and that's exactly what Binger did do.
	Impermissibly.
	It would have been probably helpful to have an objection during parts of that to remind the court to highlight to the jury that's not the law on provocation, but that chip has sailed.
	But I think that in the end, they ended up arguing, especially Sauerkraut, but Little Binger as well, ended up arguing really to their choir.
	They're praying their choir.
	And really, what I thought Sauerkraut was doing was begging for a mistrial.
	I don't think he cared if the judge granted one.
	By the way, he was impermissibly going into certain areas, legally and factually, improperly testifying, misstating the law.
	Little Binger did that by misstating.
	He included a duty to retreat as a general duty, which is not the case in Wisconsin.
	So there was a lot of that sort of confusion, deliberate by...
	Because he cannot win the case without a confused, politically prejudiced jury, because the facts are so uniformly against him.
	And so instead, what they ended up highlighting...
	Was just the broad theory of provocation, and then in the general language of provocation, and then a couple of incidents claiming he pointed a gun, which, of course, the problem was they didn't have any evidence for that.
	There was no evidence of that.
	The evidence is effectively rebutted.
	They put a few pieces of a puzzle together that don't fit.
	And I thought the best line, actually, somewhat honestly, to my surprise, came from Richards.
	Hocus pocus out of focus.
	That was a good line.
	I would have been tempted to repeat it a couple of more times, but he did thematically by talking about fairyland and fairy dust and fantasy world and fantasy land.
	And that's where the prosecutors want you to live, not in the mind of a 17-year-old kid in a 10-second time period or a two-minute time period under attack from a mob.
	I can't remember which way.
	He said hocus pocus out of focus.
	And I think it had to go the other way.
	I said this to Nick today.
	It had to go out of focus, Hocus Pocus, because they're trying to make magic out of something that's out of focus.
	But it was good.
	It was catchy.
	Everyone in the chat, which is a good indication of how others reacted, took to it.
	And he didn't need to say it himself because Krauss, in his response, in his rebuttal, as incompetent as it was, repeated it for him.
	That's by the way the sign of a very effective line.
	When you thematically structure, when you're better than the other side at structuring an argument, they can't help themselves but repeat your lines.
	And that's when you know you've been more effective at framing the issue.
	Yeah, so it was great.
	I actually thought that Richard's best sequencing, and he didn't even say it, but it stuck with me visually, is he said it went from Rosenbaum's hands...
	To jump kicks feet, to hubris skateboard, to Grosskraut's gun.
	And you have literally hands, feet, skateboard, gun, visually as the escalation of this situation.
	And that had been recommended, by the way.
	There was a range of people who had recommended that precise to remind them of all the different weapons used against Kyle, which includes...
	I mean, what was amazing was several ridiculous statements by Little Binger.
	One was using a meme from Roadhouse to say you can't take a gun to a fistfight.
	He actually said, affirmatively in closing, some of the most outrageous statements was Little Binger saying that nobody's ever been killed in a fistfight.
	Nobody's ever been killed with hands or feet.
	It's like, what?
	A couple of centuries of human history of people being killed with hands and feet.
	And then Sauerkraut saying, well, and this summed up the prosecution, sometimes you just got to take a beating.
	That's their message.
	You shouldn't have a right to self-defense.
	Kyle should have sat there and got beaten and prayed he didn't die.
	And not just that, why would he be scared of a guy with a loaded Glock with a bullet in the chamber when he's got a big bad AR-15?
	But, oh, hold on now, I just lost my train of thought.
	Oh, it was Ian Runkle.
	Who said something funny.
	He's like, he showed up.
	He brought a gun to a fistfight.
	Ian Runkle says, no.
	He brought his fist to a gunfight.
	You have to be brave and fight mano y mano, fist to fist, when someone is assaulting you so that it's not an unfair...
	That's not how self-defense works in any realm of the universe.
	And it's like...
	I mean, it is the most classic form of victim blaming.
	It just so happens that you're blaming a victim who happened to have been armed with an AR-15.
	Transpose that to...
	Like we were talking with Ricada today, a domestic abuse case where the victim is armed with a handgun.
	Well, put down the handgun and fight him.
	Little binger better pray there's no domestic abuse victims on that jury.
	Because when Sauerkraut says, sometimes you just got to take a beating, how do you think they think about that?
	I mean, it was the most honest statement made by the prosecution in the entire case, that their whole theory is Kyle should have taken a beating and maybe died to be there that night.
	That's what they really think.
	They want to end self-defense in America.
	They want to say that you're not allowed to challenge.
	I mean, Little Binger said it in the beginning of his close.
	He said Kyle had no business being there.
	Why?
	He wasn't supporting BLM or Mr. Blake.
	What?
	That's the grounds by which you can be out in public?
	You can't defend yourself?
	You can't defend property?
	You can't defend freedom?
	You can't defend other people's liberty?
	You can't defend other people's dreams unless you're aligned with Little Binger's political agenda?
	That's what this case is all about.
	And had they just done what the mob had ordered them to do, they would not have provoked the assault that they then had to defend themselves from.
	That was a good point by the Super Chat, that the origin of the ban on short barrel rifles derives from bank robbery violence in the 20s and 30s.
	I think it's always been, since then, illegal in Wisconsin.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I never appreciated, until I took my firearm safety course, what the sawed-off shotgun was.
	You take a long barrel rifle, you saw off a portion of the barrel so that it's easier to put in your pants and the trench coat.
	And it's just as lethal.
	You lose accuracy in long range, but you don't lose devastation in short range.
	And that's what it was.
	And the idea that they would have prosecuted Rittenhouse for violating that law when he had a standard off-the-shelf, out-of-the-store AR-15, which is obviously compliant, and unless they had reason to believe it had been modified, it was a trumped-up charge that allowed a media narrative to run wild the way it did.
	So the prosecution...
	Not the prosecution.
	Provocation, response to the self-defense argument.
	At some point, you lose that response anyhow, because once Kyle was retreating, even if he had provoked an initial response, once he's retreating, he can then still be entitled to self-defense while retreating if the incident that he, even if he arguably provoked it, continues to escalate.
	And that's when you have Wenger.
	Because there's two defenses to provocation.
	Even if you think someone provoked it, And the jury has to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that that's the case.
	That's the state's burden to prove.
	Then, one, if you withdraw and give notice of your withdrawal, then all your self-defense rights are restored.
	That's what I call the give me three steps.
	And there, Kyle took a lot more than three steps.
	And if running away repeatedly, he runs away really three times.
	He tries to step back, and Rosenbaum still runs at him.
	Then he runs away.
	And he turns around, points the gun, and Rosenbaum still keeps running at him.
	And then he stops right at the end, and Rosenbaum lurches for the gun.
	So three different times he has withdrawn and given notice to anybody that's paying attention, including Rosenbaum, that he is withdrawing, and Rosenbaum refuses.
	That restores your full self-defense rights under Wisconsin law.
	The other is...
	If you are always allowed, still under Wisconsin law, to use self-defense if you are in imminent fear of great bodily harm, regardless of whether you provoked it, the only difference is provocation then imposes upon you a duty to retreat.
	In my view, that's what he did by running away from them three different times.
	But on top of that, the state's only argument is he should have run into a mob that was committing violence all night long and see what happens.
	The same mob that was part of, as far as he knew, the community that was screaming, Get him, get him, get him.
	And after Zeminski fired a shot in the air right behind his head.
	So in my view, even if the jury were to find beyond a reasonable doubt provocation existed, which I don't think exists, there's no evidence of it, period.
	The problem is he did, in fact, withdraw and give notice of it.
	He did it so three different times.
	And on top of that, he actually did retreat to all available remedies.
	He only shot when Rosenbaum, the third time Rosenbaum decided to chase him, tried to grab his gun and lunge at him.
	And the prosecution tried to make up evidence about what the physical evidence showed from the state's own medical examiner, which showed, in fact, that there's no doubt.
	That Rosenbaum grabbed the gun because of the nature of the injury to his hand is only consistent with that.
	And so that was helpful.
	And Richards did a good job of also highlighting in close that the shot in the back.
	Went down his back into his hip, which could only happen when somebody's lunging at you.
	And to Richard's credit, one of his rare visual moments, he did a lunge imitation right in front of the jury to show that's what that looks like.
	And he measured the distance of the four feet from him to the jury, which was also very good.
	Very good.
	Now, the funny thing is, Richard's...
	I figured out who he reminds me of.
	He reminds me of the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, oddly enough.
	His demeanor is...
	Brash.
	You know, he sits with his legs crossed and objects without standing up and it could rub people the wrong way.
	But the one thing that it does not give the impression of is insincerity or phoniness or dishonesty.
	It's not eloquent.
	It's not smooth delivery.
	But it doesn't look dishonest and it doesn't look deceitful.
	It's where you take what could be limitations and make them virtues.
	So you just tell the story like a blue-collar guy at a bar.
	You're not a fancy-pants lawyer.
	You're not Mr. Eloquent.
	You're not Mr. Public Speaker.
	You're just a guy who knows your kid is innocent and you're trying to explain to the jury why that's the case.
	And say, use common sense.
	That's preposterous.
	That's ridiculous.
	That's ludicrous.
	He has a lot of Wisconsin sarcasm.
	I thought he mostly used it effectively.
	I also, the other idea that people had proposed was that he go at Binger.
	I mean, this was my idea, of course, from the very beginning of the case, but I was very glad to see him do so because I thought it needed to be done.
	It needed to be personal.
	There's a lot of judges who won't let you do it, but this judge clearly was, you know, free reign, say whatever you want.
	Well, of course, the judge himself said, I don't believe you, Binger.
	I mean, I don't believe you, which is tantamount to saying you're a liar, but it's polite lawyers, judges.
	I mean, I'll just read this one.
	It's on the point.
	Do you think Richards provoked the rebuttal as strategy, knowing how indignant the prosecution gets when their integrity is questioned, expecting them to be as befuddled as they were?
	The reason why it was recommended to him, in particular foreclosed, was that reason.
	So when Sauerkraut was going to give the rebuttal, he cannot handle, he's made very clear he cannot handle, allegations that expose what a corrupt fraud he and Binger are.
	And so to keep hitting him, hitting him, hitting him, hitting him, hitting him, hitting him, drove him so nuts that he would just went on a rail, went this direction, that direction, the other direction, this direction.
	And he looked like a mean, bitter, vindictive prosecutor that is precisely who they really are.
	He took down the mask and exposed who he was.
	And in the process of doing so, is left only praying that bad jurors are on the jury.
	And it was...
	It was the old Shakespearean, me thinks he doth protesteth too much.
	Like, when you accuse somebody of lying, if they know they're not lying, they don't lash out that way.
	But Binger and Krauss, I mean, they know what they've been doing since day one.
	They know they've been bending the rules, misrepresenting the facts.
	They know that in the prosecution, if it wasn't malicious prosecution, it was damn well selective prosecution.
	And when you attack their integrity, and...
	Nobody in that courtroom believes them and they know it.
	The judge doesn't believe them.
	I suspect they got the impression the jury doesn't believe them.
	And you attack their integrity and that is when someone is driven by ego, all they have.
	I mean, they lash out at everybody because how dare you not believe what I'm trying to tell you.
	It was, I didn't see the jabs as much as their response indicated they had jabbed them.
	I just saw, you know, Richards doing what he was out there to do, which is call them liars, point out how they, from the first second Binger opened his mouth, he was lying about getting shot in the back.
	Now, technically not a lie, but when you say that someone was shot in the back, there is one and only one thing anybody understands that to mean.
	That means they were in a surrendered or vulnerable position, not lunging at you, but an angular shot hit them in the top of the back and went through their torso in a manner that I wouldn't even call that getting hit in the back.
	I would just call that getting laterally shot.
	They lied from minute one, and Richards called them out in a very brash and full metal jacket.
	He did it in a very Wisconsin way.
	And I thought, you know, again, that's his strength.
	He played to his two strengths, which is he knows facts really well, and he talks in a blue-collar Wisconsin way.
	So even his verbal slip-ups actually highlight and accent his authenticity.
	There's a certain president who suddenly discovered the inability of misspelling and mispronunciation when he might have realized that that enhanced his perceived authenticity of a recent political arena.
	It was impressive watching that skill set develop.
	Maybe Kefefe was just a Twitter slip-up, or maybe not.
	Maybe Trump understood this is because Trump grew up in the construction community, and you trust it's a strength.
	You can take what's otherwise a limitation and make it into a strength because, yeah, I screw up with words.
	Yeah, I screw up with things.
	But it's because I'm honest, unlike Binger.
	And that's what he made clear.
	And that's where the contrast could not be greater between the two.
	And I thought that was very effective in defense presentation.
	I mean, at this point, only a dishonest, rogue, runaway jury convicts Kyle of anything.
	So the only question is whether it's going to be acquittals or mistrials, and it's going to be mistrials if bad jurors snuck on the jury.
	In order for there to, if there's an 11 not guilty, one guilty, technically that's a hung jury.
	Is there recourse for the judge to say, we're not retrying this?
	Nope.
	Okay, so it just takes one stubborn person to get a hung jury and then result in a new trial.
	It's not like if it's only one one, they can sort of override them and say, okay.
	That's why this case always had an unusually high mistrial risk, unless you were very careful in jury selection.
	I'm not asking for myself.
	Are there betting odds on this?
	Is there a market for the outcome of this trial?
	Yeah, I had people asking me that.
	No, there's not.
	The only one there's any betting market on is Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, on whether she'll be convicted of fraud.
	Okay.
	And I, you know, on a civil matter, I think betting is less of a sin than on a life and death matter, quite literally.
	I mean, her case is criminal, though.
	Well, yes.
	Sorry.
	On a non-violent criminal case, I think it's less of a moral sin.
	Yeah.
	There were odds on the OJ case.
	I remember because I won money on betting and getting acquitted.
	And there were, there was money on the Snipes case.
	There are odds on the Snipes case.
	Hypothetically speaking, the...
	Defended in the case, may have bet on his own acquittals and made a nice little chunk of cash, hypothetically speaking.
	Okay, now here's the question everyone is asking, because I sometimes just can't believe what I'm seeing in real time.
	Binger, with his little binger finger on the trigger, I don't know, I didn't know that he was aiming the gun at the jury.
	If I'm in the jury...
	And his finger was on the trigger.
	Was on the trigger.
	I mean, where did he learn gun safety?
	Alec Baldwin?
	I mean, that's what I was going to say.
	In the context of Alec Baldwin, and even not in the context of Alec Baldwin, that's not a game you play.
	And if I'm in the jury, I appreciate that I'm neurotic, and I appreciate that I overreact.
	I would have been exquisitely angry.
	I once had someone point a gun at me in a joking manner, and it was borderline.
	I mean, I know it's assault, technically.
	I did not like it, even though they thought they knew everything about guns.
	Binger was trying to set a trap for Richards, and to his credit, he did not take it.
	Also, Binger also got the advice not to repeat the N-word.
	Credit to him for doing that, too.
	Hold on.
	What trap do you think he was trying to set by having that gesture in particular?
	Because what does it highlight?
	That pointing the gun at someone is scary and threatening.
	He wanted Richards to highlight how scary and threatening it is to point a gun at someone, thus playing up the provocation theory that Binger had.
	So Binger was teasing out, trying to tempt Richards into saying, look at how crazy this was.
	He just pointed a gun at you.
	That's Binger's argument.
	That's why that would be provocative if Kyle did.
	To his credit, Richards did not take the bait.
	Fantastic.
	That is 4D level chess right there because I didn't even think those two steps ahead.
	But I guarantee...
	Binger does.
	He's a skeezy, swarmy, but smart prosecutor.
	Well, I guarantee you the jury did not like having a gun.
	Even if they were told it's clean.
	Clear, cold gun, especially given the Alec Baldwin.
	The subtextual message was, you better bring back the verdict we want.
	I mean, you know, and when that's re-enhanced by the way Sauerkraut, Sauerkraut, whatever his last name is, how he handled his rebuttal, that seemed to be the argument.
	They were arguing to their position, you better go in there and you better hold out and you better do what the government says because we're the ones ultimately with all the guns.
	I love what you just said.
	In fact, had Richards, for all of the encouragement, object, object, object, had he objected then, Richards, Bingo then said, look, it is so much an assault on your safety that just pointing what you know to be an unloaded gun is an act of provocation.
	Richards didn't take the bait.
	Binger pointed a gun with his finger on the trigger at the jury.
	They reacted internally probably the way any reasonable person would, and it's not going to be to Binger's favor.
	Did Binger arguably commit a crime?
	It didn't work the way he had hoped it would.
	It's because, again, Richards did, I think, his best version he's ever done, and I think Binger did not expect that because Binger knows Richards' reputation and probably presumed that he would take the bait on some of those things, and Richards didn't.
	Is there any plausible argument that Binger actually committed a crime?
	Because someone sent me or tweeted a copy of a statute which said that it's unlawful to point a gun at anybody.
	It is.
	It is.
	Yes.
	Yeah, so it's added to the litany of crimes and constitutional violations and ethical rule violations that Little Binger has committed in this case.
	Wow.
	Robert, I hope everyone in the chat appreciates the insight of that response.
	That's a gambit that Binger took that did not pay off.
	And now I absolutely think you're 1000% right that Richard's not objecting to that or not reacting.
	It was probably the best non-reaction of the...
	Instead, it ends up making Little Binger look like a nut.
	What's this nut job doing pointing a gun at me?
	What the heck?
	It enhances that's who these people are.
	And, of course, it became a permanent meme.
	So, you know, there's so many memes from this trial.
	You know, Ricada had a fun one.
	He had Kyle pointing at the screen, and it was a picture, I think, of us or me or one of the others.
	I was like, because it's from the pointing at the screen stuff, so there's so many of those.
	And then somebody did the hocus pocus out of focus.
	They redid that shot, and they put little hats on sauerkraut and little fairy wizard hats on binger.
	And, you know, had a little fairy dust coming off the TV screen.
	So a lot of good stuff with that.
	But here's a case where the court of public opinion, I think, really mattered.
	Because all of that collective effort and collective help over the weekend of what Dark Crypto and others did, ultimately that information and intel got back to the defense team.
	And Richards critically incorporated it to gut what was going to be Binger's core argument in close.
	And in the end, he really didn't have it.
	And so that's why he had to go to more desperate lengths.
	With stunts, like pointing in AR-15 at the jury.
	With his finger on the trigger.
	Not off the trigger like it's supposed to be, on the trigger.
	And not off the trigger like Kyle Rittenhouse's finger was off the trigger when he had his gun pointing at the gun.
	I mean, I saw that even with my layperson eyes.
	I didn't see that his finger was on the trigger in real time, but we didn't see that image from the angle that we had from the live broadcast.
	And I certainly didn't know that he pointed it at the jury.
	Oh.
	One other addition.
	Wonderful little phraseology.
	Probably came from, this is not naturally a sort of Richards thing, but it was still great that he did, which was saying that, you know, Kyle Rittenhouse was entitled, like any other Kenosha citizen, to be unmolested by Mr. Rosenbaum.
	Well, he was definitely alluding at the fact that Rosenbaum had selected Rittenhouse to pursue because he looked young and weak.
	It's true, and that's an argument that I was thrilled to see him make, because there were about a dozen or so arguments, six critical ones, that some of us had really wanted made, and Richards made them all.
	And so, complete credit to him.
	Because, I mean, sometimes, like I say, ego can be a block, or you can live in a bubble during your defense.
	He clearly incorporated a lot of information, and it led to the best ever defense I think he's ever given.
	I'm going to read this one because it's a legit question, but this is sort of one of Scott Adams' loser think techniques is you should have done that yesterday type thing, which is something you can always say quite literally.
	But why not request dismissing those obvious charges before today?
	Is it just to throw the prosecution off their game?
	It's because what the judge said was until the close of evidence, I didn't know whether in fact they had a short barrel rifle or not.
	He made that clear.
	He was like, there was nothing in the indictment itself that precluded that being a short barrel rifle.
	And so there wasn't sufficient allegations from the probable cause statement itself to rule that probable possibility out.
	By the end of the close of evidence, it was clear he never had a short barrel rifle.
	And so it was the prosecution's bad faith to continue to pursue it when they knew that, but the court can't take remedy until the close of evidence.
	I'm going to say Richards did really good today, and I'm going to bring up this one.
	Marty McGraw, Mr. Barnes, I respect your integrity in praising Richards.
	A lot of people get the misrepresentation because when someone has confirmation bias, they're going to look at Robert and say he is always critical of other lawyers, and then totally ignore all of the lawyers he has been overtly praising.
	Harmeet Dillon, for example, Sidney Powell before the Kraken, and any number of other attorneys who Robert...
	Overtly, actively, and regularly praises.
	And he was critical of Richards for legit reasons.
	Critical of a situation for legit reasons.
	But Robert is not...
	I mean, I know you're Robert.
	We've known each other for a couple of years now.
	Not too proud.
	It's not a question of ego with you.
	It's a question of strategy.
	Completely.
	And I just wanted the best Richards to show up.
	And my hope was that public criticism could collectively get feedback that he could then incorporate to be the best version of himself, and he was today.
	So, I mean, all I ever cared about was Kyle being acquitted.
	I didn't care about nothing else.
	Zero else.
	You know, he's an innocent kid being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor, period.
	And by a corrupt...
	Politically prejudiced media.
	He wouldn't be here by any honest prosecutor, by any honest press.
	And that's the only reason why he's here.
	That's all I ever wanted.
	And so it was always risky to say anything because you can be critiqued.
	I didn't want to say anything that would actually undermine the defense.
	Just wanted the best Richards to show up, and today he did.
	It was great because you look at Richards today, his presentation, he looked like the, not a cranky uncle, he looked like your uncle that you love, but who's a hard ass.
	And it came through.
	It came through in terms of honesty.
	Okay, fine, everyone.
	And his passion came through.
	He deeply believes Kyle is innocent, and that finally came through.
	I mean, he's like, this is BS.
	This is nonsense.
	I mean, I think he said that.
	Actually, those were the exact words multiple times.
	Go at Binger for being the fraud that he is.
	Bring out all the critical, essential evidence.
	Make sure the jury knows how passionately you're committed to this kid.
	And very good close.
	There were no winners here, but it was complete injustice to make Kyle the loser here.
	Do you think the jury being escorted twice out of the room during second closing for prosecutor hurt or helped the notion that the prosecutors were trying to cheat?
	Oh, it definitely helped.
	To have the judge interrupt twice and have to send them out because the prosecutors are up to more shenanigans, it helps the defense.
	Or chicanery.
	Exactly.
	By the way, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of the...
	Oh, one addendum.
	Go for it.
	This is an I and a W. These are two arrows pointing down a W. Stands for Infowars, is where it comes from.
	It is not, as a commenter said, a swastika.
	But some idiot.
	Oh, for goodness sake, people.
	Come on, cut the garbage.
	When I found out that that was an Infowars, I was like, oh, that's it.
	I'm getting in trouble.
	YouTube algorithmic image learning is going to come down and strike us.
	But you've been doing it for a while.
	Yeah, it's an Infowars.
	Who would even see a swastika in that?
	I mean, that's...
	Okay.
	That's real projection going on.
	There's some real issues taken on there.
	And now on the jokes that I'm...
	I'm not jumping on the jokes that pick on the appearance of Krauss.
	It's other people's humor.
	I pick on him being an idiot, being an ass, being a bad human being.
	And I will question your competence and make fun of you as a lawyer.
	Your legal skills when you try to put innocent people in prison based on lying about facts and law.
	Yeah, because it's the arrogant pomposity.
	I don't know if it looks like Krauss and Binger were rogue prosecutors who just wanted to make an example.
	I now genuinely believe this is systemic corruption.
	And, you know, it was the McCloskeys at one point, but they fought back.
	You know, pick on a 17-year-old kid in circumstances which, from a 30,000-foot overview, are going to be very easy to weaponize, to demonize.
	He killed two people.
	The kid killed two people.
	The kid, but for the grace of God, I mean, he should be dead as well, because I, in the beginning, had no idea, up until the end, until this trial, I had no idea.
	It wasn't a volatile situation.
	It was a murderous situation.
	They wanted him, and they would have killed him two blocks from the cops just to kill him.
	And I didn't fully appreciate it until I saw the evidence come out.
	And now it just further deepens the red pill suppository that I've been taking for the last little while.
	The way the media, they may not know that they're repeating falsehoods, but they might be willfully blind or they might just be colluding with corrupt prosecutors to repeat the lie to then brainwash and misinform a swath of the population who up until even now say, oh, written out that kid, the white supremacist kid that killed a couple of people at the BLM.
	Can you imagine?
	This Rosenbaum is up at a BLM rally screaming the N-word, which this is another thing that actually also depresses me.
	Ordinarily, anybody utters that word anywhere, but especially at a BLM protest, there would be...
	But because of the tribalism, when Rosenbaum was saying, shoot me, shoot me, you had people looking around like, who's saying that word?
	Who is possibly saying that here?
	And then they look, it's like, oh, it's an ally?
	We'll give him a pass.
	If it's an enemy, we would literally cranium that boy.
	I mean, everything about this is disheartening.
	But the prosecution, we now know, it was overtly corrupt, beginning to end, and their response in their rebuttal was...
	An attempt not to prove their case, but to save their reputation.
	And boy, did it fail.
	Another good thing Richards did is highlight the part about Kyle's testimony, too.
	But he put it in his own words that had Rosenbaum got that gun, other people would have died that night.
	He almost said what I'd been wanting, and I think he was thinking about it, and then he decided to skip it.
	He almost said we would have had a real active shooter that night, and his name would have been Joseph Rosenbaum.
	And the only reason we didn't is because Kyle defended not only himself, but other innocent lives that night.
	But I'm glad he stayed away from that argument, and I would have just avoided the argument that had he gotten the gun.
	Forget the gun.
	Had they just disabled.
	Rittenhouse, they would have bashed his brains in, and then who knows?
	The gun, maybe nothing happens.
	Maybe they just go on with their night, and they got justice.
	But it was clear.
	They wanted to kill the kid, and there's no question about it.
	And the only two miracles of the evening, three I guess, Jump Kick Man survived, Gross Kroos survived but with his wound, and Rittenhouse survived.
	I mean, that's...
	That's it.
	Here, actually, this is good.
	SD1985 says, Who thinks dropping your gun just so you can fight hand-to-hand is a smart move?
	It never crossed their mind that someone else can pick it up and use it on Kyle as he's getting his head kicked.
	They might not even use it on him or anyone else.
	They just would have beaten him, to quote Shawshank Redemption, they would have beaten him until there would have been nothing left to beat.
	And I never realized how, by the skin of his teeth, Rittenhouse got out of that situation.
	What's next now, Robert?
	We're going to get into some more questions.
	Everyone in the chat, bring them in and we'll get to them.
	They're in deliberation.
	I don't want to jinx it because I always guess wrong.
	Can they come back with a verdict tomorrow morning?
	Unanimous acquittal?
	Normally, a quick verdict is a pro-prosecution verdict.
	I don't think so in this case.
	I think if a verdict comes back tomorrow...
	It should be all acquittals.
	They would have had to have picked a bad jury, the defense.
	They would have had to stack the jury with bad jurors to come back with anything other than acquittals on a quick verdict.
	If it's drawn out, if it goes more than a day, if it goes into Wednesday, if it goes into Thursday, that means you have some holdouts.
	That would be my read.
	But I think there's people committed to his acquittal on that jury.
	A random jury would produce that.
	And so then the worst case scenario would be mistrial.
	There's a small chance of a split verdict, but I think that chance went down today because the judge made clear if it was self-defense for Rosenbaum, it was self-defense.
	He can't be guilty of McGinnis.
	And jump kick man never even appeared in court.
	How do you convict somebody of someone who never complained in court about what purportedly took place?
	So I think in those circumstances, I think it's about...
	Very high chance of acquittals.
	Some chance still of mistrial just because I don't know if bad jurors are on the jury.
	Robert, actually, son of a gun, are we not live on...
	Oh, we're live.
	Okay, we're live on Rumble and we're 2,000 watching on Rumble right now.
	I forgot to get to two super Rumble rants yesterday and tonight.
	So let me just get them now.
	R.G. Rader on Rumble live now says, great job, guys.
	Thank you very much, R.G. And yesterday...
	I forgot to get to it and I feel bad when that happens.
	It was Antidigerati.
	Antidigerati says, I'm in BC and we mask even five-year-old kindergartners in school.
	That was to my opening rant yesterday.
	This is Robert.
	I mean, this was not a coincidence.
	I don't know.
	We don't know who did what now, but it was not a coincidence.
	Why was YouTube cutting the stream early on?
	So law and crime went down.
	Reketa went down.
	I don't think Crowder went down, but I don't think Crowder was the source of the copyright claim or the complaint to YouTube.
	So I'm going to scratch that one off the possibility list.
	Rakeda's stream went down right about when Rakeda was well on his momentum to hitting 100,000 live viewers.
	100,000 live viewers of the stream.
	The first reason that appeared in the feed was privacy violations.
	To which I tweeted out to Team YouTube, YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, how can you have privacy violations on a publicly broadcast trial?
	Then, within a few minutes, it said terms of service violations.
	It didn't specify a reason, but Rakata said he had gotten a copyright audio claim.
	How, what, is this not copyright abuse?
	By the way, at the same time that this happened, PBS's broadcast went up by like 5%.
	Fox News, I suspect, went up by 5%.
	Crowder benefited as well, but I just don't think Crowder's in the game of these types of claims.
	What do you think happened, and was it chicanery afoot on YouTube?
	I have no doubt about it, because for Law& Crime, they went down after they put up a poll that had a lot of people saying Kyle's not guilty, and then not long thereafter, all of a sudden, they're taken down.
	And Nick's dream has been one of the most popular independent...
	Content providers covering the trial with a whole bunch of lawyers providing independent insight and a lot of wit and a lot of fun between that and the chat.
	And I think that they didn't want that.
	I think there were a lot of people out there agitated that Nick Ricada is getting three times, four times the viewers of PBS, of NBC, of ABC, of CBS.
	I mean, that's what was happening.
	They were around 20,000, 30,000, sometimes less than that.
	And he's getting $60,000, $70,000, $80,000.
	And I think it was deliberate to prevent that.
	I think my understanding is MSNBC tonight only showed highlights of the prosecution's close, showed nothing from the defense.
	And so I think they didn't want people seeing what is the truth about this case and wanted to suppress that information and would have been able to get away with it, but for the crowd of public opinion on social media haranguing them about it.
	It was immediate and it was relentless.
	I mean, people got out there and it went up, came down, went up, came down.
	But the first time it went down, Nick lost 30,000 viewers in real time because half of the people, I'm convinced, watching Rakata's stream today, it's their first time there.
	Like, a lot of these people, they're just looking to watch the show.
	It came up, however.
	They found it on Twitter, Facebook.
	Someone sent the link.
	And when it goes down, they just do the reflexive thing, go to PBS.
	Okay, comments are disabled on PBS, but at least I get to watch it.
	It is in the comments and it's in the commentary that you actually get the information and not in information or not in video that most people do not know what to do with how to digest.
	To me, it's obvious chicanery.
	This shirt.
	I need to get some new merch of my own because I'm wearing some old stuff here.
	It was obvious.
	The impact was real.
	And it took about two hours to make up for the damage.
	I think Rakita got back to like $83,000, but did not maintain the momentum that he had early on in the day.
	But what are you going to do?
	At this point, people say sue, but there's nothing to sue.
	Nick said breach of contract.
	He might be right.
	What are you going to do?
	But it was obvious.
	So they are now deliberating.
	It should be, we all think, a relevant...
	They went home tonight, so they're not going to start deliberating until tomorrow morning.
	Oh, and they're going to go home tonight, and the expectation is that they don't follow the news.
	Robert, do you know of the news that apparently the judge was getting death threats, and not just him, but family members and younger family members?
	Do you know any truth to those statements?
	Oh yeah, they're true.
	They're true.
	When does that...
	I know that typically I suspect judges...
	Expect to get death threats during high-profile cases.
	It's just par for the course.
	I don't know that that expectation goes for other family members and younger children, grandchildren.
	When do those threats actually, in law, or as a matter of practicality, become cause for a mistrial?
	Oh, only cause for mistrial if the jury is aware of them, that they themselves are being threatened based on a verdict, then it can be grounds for mistrial.
	But otherwise, the judge receiving them, particularly without the jury's knowledge of it, would generally not be grounds for mistrial.
	And now, do we know if the jury members were getting any death threats or doxing or anything?
	I mean, to my knowledge, their names have not been publicly disclosed.
	So we know that someone that apparently is George Floyd's relative...
	Claimed to have been photographing them and knew who they were.
	And we know that the judge reported that somebody was in fact photographing the jurors.
	But to my knowledge, there's been no actual public listing of their individual names.
	Well, I think we would have...
	Us having our ears to the grindstone would have heard it first.
	I haven't heard it.
	I saw the video of the individual claiming to be George Floyd Cousin.
	I saw a video of him in a hallway of an apartment building, allegedly.
	I don't retweet these things because you never know what's real and what's fake.
	And just over the weekend, someone sent me a message and said, hey, did you hear Klaus Schwab got arrested for fraud charges?
	And I looked through it very summarily and I said, I'm not sure I'm convinced enough by this, period, let alone to retweet it.
	So an individual claiming to be George Floyd's cousin in a car threatening to dox.
	And intimidate the jurors, allegedly in the hallway of some judge, I think, whatever.
	So we don't know how far that went, but I mean, I think we're not, we would be ignorant or playing naive to say the jury does not know about this.
	I mean, they have to know.
	Oh, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I'm more on the idealistic side on that, that I tend to believe jurors don't, that they follow their instruction and don't seek out media information about the case and do go to great lengths to avoid it.
	Other people disagree with me.
	They think I'm idealistic, and they think jurors often look up social media and media accounts of what's taking place.
	But I don't know, frankly.
	Viva, are you covering Juicy Smulier?
	I don't know if there's been news on that.
	I've been following it from the beginning, so I'm not going to stop now.
	I'll just have to check what the news is.
	Okay, so we started off with Binger.
	He started strong, got very weak when he started saying...
	No biggie if someone's pointing a loaded Glock at you because you've got an AR-15.
	Then we got Richard's response, which was great.
	I don't think he made...
	I mean, do you think he made any big mistakes in his response or any mistakes at all?
	There are a couple of things that would have been better left out, but I'm not going to highlight them.
	No need to at this point.
	Good.
	And then the response...
	I don't want to say sauerkraut now.
	Someone's poisoned me.
	Krauss.
	Abject disaster.
	Take a beating.
	There was another thing that he said that I said was the worst argument.
	Hold on.
	I'm just going to go to my Twitter because I can't remember.
	There's so much happening.
	Everything I learn that is new pushes something old out of my head.
	People out there, he should not have been allowed to say that Zeminski was unavailable for Fifth Amendment reasons.
	Oh, yes.
	In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot talk about that defendant in the criminal case, their assertion of the Fifth Amendment rights or their silence.
	However, any other witness, even if they are a defendant in another case, both sides can comment on their not testifying.
	And so for the prosecution.
	God damn it.
	You just...
	That's another 4D-level black pill moment.
	Oh, look how good I am.
	I'm Binger.
	I'm prosecuting Zeminski.
	Don't accuse me of bias.
	I'm conveniently prosecuting him so that he cannot testify because of the Fifth.
	And then we'll see what bullcrap plea deal we strike with him.
	You know, like they did with the Molotov cocktail lawyers out of New York.
	This is why.
	I don't have these malicious thoughts.
	I don't have these deceitful thoughts in my head in the first place to even put them into effect.
	Yes, chat.
	Everyone listening right now, that was not a thought in my head, and now it is undoubtedly what was done.
	Press charge.
	I'm pursuing him for arson.
	Look how good I am.
	I'm an honest prosecutor.
	So he can't testify now because self-incrimination, but we'll see what happens when this trial is over and what plea deal he agrees to.
	I had another thought, which I...
	Oh, no.
	Sorry.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to bring up...
	This.
	He was too cowardly to use his fists.
	Let me just...
	As Mr. Bigger said, he brought a gun to a fist fight.
	He was too cowardly to use his own fists to fight his way out.
	That's going to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
	Now, it's politically where they're going.
	It's where they want to go.
	They want to say you don't have a right of self-defense in this country.
	But that is insane.
	Insane.
	Kyle was supposed to engage in a fist fight?
	Drop his gun and engage in a fist fight?
	That is nuts.
	Robert, he was only 5 '3", 150.
	And if anybody's ever watched UFC, you know that a 5 '3 fighter comes in weighing in at about 120 if they haven't lost enough weight.
	And he's nuts.
	And he's nuts.
	Which, another great credit to Richards.
	He came back to that over and over again.
	Crazy man.
	Lunatic.
	Nut job.
	I like the way he...
	He goes, maybe he got out of jail.
	Maybe he got out of hospital.
	Maybe he got out of jail.
	He got out of somewhere.
	We don't know where he got out of.
	He got out of somewhere.
	He was on his meds.
	Do you think he was on his meds?
	If this is what he looks like on his meds, Lord knows what he looks like off his meds.
	So I thought all of that was very – this was a crazy people.
	And the thing with a crazy person is they do – you have no way to control them or stop them or contain them.
	So it doesn't matter their size.
	They're crazy.
	They're just going to keep coming at you any means possible.
	To hurt you and inflict serious bodily injury.
	And that's what he did.
	That's what he kept doing.
	That's what he promised to do.
	And pretending that every witness lied on the stand who repeated the threats they heard that night was, I mean, that's just nuts.
	And then, of course, Sauerkraut getting up there and impeaching himself again by pretending that that witness didn't expose them for trying to support and perjury.
	It didn't help at all in the rebuttal.
	Anyway, but to spend an hour defending himself, rather than prosecuting the case, exposed where his mindset was.
	And a big part of that was the success of Richards poking them and poking them and poking them.
	They also have big egos, so that's why he's like, hey, that didn't work out so well, did it?
	Hey, you had to drop that one, didn't you?
	That provokes them.
	They can't.
	Help themselves.
	I gotta bring this on.
	This is awesome.
	Would the jury have been justified in giving Binger a beating?
	And would the bailiff let them...
	Well, according to him, yes, because he pointed a gun at the jury.
	That was time to leap over and beat the daylights out of him.
	Submit to death, Binger, because you provoked the jury and it's game over for you.
	Oh, my goodness.
	That was like a moment out of Rainmaker, the movie.
	It's also based on the book by John Grisham.
	Where the defense is secretly eavesdropping, wiretapping the plaintiff's lawyer.
	And he convinces them a particular juror is good for them when he's actually good for the defense.
	And he gets the defense lawyer to so upset the juror that the juror jumps over the thing and attacks him.
	That's the closest I've seen to that.
	But yeah, what you saw was a circus, as Jack Posobiec pointed out.
	It was a circus of a prosecution run by a circus clown.
	And we got to see it on full display today.
	And presumably, hopefully, prayerfully, the jury sees through it and understands the innocence of Kyle and acquits him because of what's at stake goes beyond Kyle.
	Well, but my issue is that I'm bringing up the dragon's treasure.
	I think this is the dragon's...
	Is that the dragon's tea?
	Yeah, I think that's dragon's tea.
	If they find...
	So I...
	I'm glad Dragon's Tea tempers their Super Chats on my channel compared to Nick's, but everyone can read it, and I'm just going to go on to another Super Chat in a second.
	The problem is this.
	The process is the punishment, and they know regardless of what the outcome is, it's going to be an acquittal unless something goes wonky, but they've punished the living bejesus out of this kid and anyone else who would ever think of using a gun to defend themselves now, and in that sense, it's been a massive victory.
	They have terrorized all of America, or all of Second Amendment self-defense respecting America, into availing themselves of that, right?
	Because even if you do it under these circumstances, they're going to come after you with the fullest extent of the law, and but for video evidence, but for crowd-sourcing knowledge, but for the cleanest of facts, most people know they're going to go away now if they do this.
	So they've won, even if they lose.
	To a certain degree, yes.
	They've put self-defense in jeopardy.
	And they've said if their violent mobs take over the streets, you better not come down.
	You better let them do whatever they want.
	But if Kyle is fully acquitted, that will be a substantial pushback on that.
	So they will have achieved success in part just by bringing the prosecution.
	But there will be major pushback if that jury says, no, you're wrong.
	This kid's innocent.
	Don't do this again.
	Well, and I'll say pushback and potential sanctions.
	I'm saying because the defense had objected to Binger pointing the gun.
	We discussed it earlier.
	And Robert's point, which is 4D level chess on point, is that had the defense objected, it would have proven the prosecution's point that pointing a gun at anybody is provocation.
	And Richards, by not having objected, just let Binger look like an absolute finger on the Binger trigger lunatic.
	And the jury probably felt as uncomfortable as I did when I saw that.
	And so...
	Binger on the binger.
	You got it going.
	Yeah, man.
	Okay.
	Let me see what we got here.
	The only temptation I would have had was maybe to say in close, binger wants you to pull the trigger on Kyle Rittenhouse based on false facts.
	Play around with that visual imagery in ways that don't backfire on you.
	Here's another good point.
	Super Iron Bob says, Binger's poor handling by the gun was wonderfully juxtaposed by Richards handling it with respect and not pointing at the people.
	Someone said something that Binger...
	Oh, I don't know what they said that Binger did.
	Not Binger, sorry.
	Richards didn't do something proper with the gun.
	One way or the other, Binger did not point the tip of that barrel at anybody or anything.
	Yeah, Richards did.
	Let's see.
	There's two chats that I want to get to.
	That was so unsafe, I could not believe my eyes.
	Can we make sure this is clear?
	Could have been achieved the same thing using a prop.
	Or his arms like they had done previously.
	Robert is 100%, 1000% accurate on what the purpose was, the strategy, and how it didn't play out the way it was supposed to.
	I've lost the chat.
	It was from Scandemic Survivor.
	Oh, jeez, I shouldn't have read that.
	Now I'm on a watch list.
	Thank you, Scandemic.
	He says, any jurors with children would surely be influenced if they are aware of Rosenbaum's issues.
	Ron is the potato files.
	Although they are taboo, what prevents a juror from bringing it up during deliberation?
	What would happen in the case?
	So, it wasn't deduced as evidence, so that would be one thing that would prevent anybody from bringing it up.
	But Robert, is there any chance that they know it regardless?
	There's always that possibility.
	And do they get to do anything with that knowledge or just know?
	Generally, whatever happens in the jury room stays in the jury room.
	It's very hard for that to ever be admissible evidence.
	Let's see.
	The mistrial.
	I mean, any news, anything to add to our discussion about the potential for a mistrial with prejudice?
	Do you think this judge at this point leaves it in the hands of the jury?
	He does?
	Okay.
	I mean, he can still reconsider after a verdict, in my opinion.
	He can still grant a new trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct even after a jury verdict.
	Very interesting.
	So the judge, in a way...
	It becomes easier to appeal in that instance.
	Okay.
	So the judge might be saying, I'm going to save my second kick at the can.
	If they get it wrong, maybe I'll intervene and then run our risk with an appeal.
	I would also just like to point out, this was a live stream called with less than 45 minutes notice.
	We're over 20,000 if we're including this stream and Rumble, because we're over 2,000 on Rumble, which is phenomenal.
	And it's not phenomenal just only for this particular case.
	It's phenomenal for law as a whole.
	Because this trial is going to come, this trial is going to go, and there's going to be other monumental trials that are going to come up that people now know they can find the information on.
	Objective information in that we call both sides and we give the information of the aggregate knowledge of the internet in assessing it.
	And people know now.
	PBS with their comments turned off and yada yada and MSNBC with not even airing it but just the highlights that they want.
	There's a world of knowledge out there that people have access to.
	Which is probably why they shut down Riqueta halfway through.
	Okay, sorry.
	No, I'm not going to read that one.
	I brought it up.
	I'm just going to leave it there.
	The hatred directed towards the judges, lawyers, and jurors in all these politically charged cases is one of the scariest aspects, but how significant is it really, J.M.?
	Well, you know, I mean, whether it was for my commentary on this case or commentary on some other cases today, I mean, I got two death threats today, so.
	That's just the reality.
	You have people who threaten you routinely because they want to weaponize everything to censor opinions they don't like.
	And it's a sad situation, but it's a functional reality of where we are.
	We'll talk about that afterwards.
	I did not know that.
	Twitter, DM, email?
	No, they got my email and they got the court office number and did it that way.
	That's the...
	People think that anyone's going to achieve anything by doing that.
	Get in line, boys.
	Get in line.
	Why did the judge not use directed verdict once Gage stated he was shot only after pointing the gun at Kyle?
	Robert, let me see if I can feel this one and you'll tell me if I'm right.
	Even if that would apply to Gage, that would not necessarily apply to Huber and Jump Kick Man, I guess, to some extent, for the reckless discharge, and to Rosenbaum.
	Good enough?
	Yeah, I mean, he could have done a directed verdict on Gage.
	I mean, he could have done a directed verdict on all of them, in my opinion.
	Obviously, he could have, and I thought, should have granted a mistrial with prejudice.
	But this judge has been clear he wants this to be a jury verdict case from day one.
	So that's why.
	I'm going to bring this up because I'm going to show people that I am not...
	Here to protect Robert, who's a big boy.
	Robert, Barnes is unreal.
	Ego the size of Texas.
	Now he's taking all the credit for the defense.
	You're a dollar sign, dollar sign.
	I don't know if he meant ass or just making money.
	Yeah, unfortunately, you forgot the A. I'm all money.
	I appreciate that.
	I'm money, baby.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	You must be, Randy Chase, I'm not saying this to make fun of you.
	I think you should go back to the beginning of the stream.
	Roberts has given credits, credits, credit to Richards.
	And Robert gives credit.
	To lawyers when due.
	And he gives criticism to lawyers when due.
	And there's nothing more we should expect in life.
	You expect criticism when you've done something wrong.
	Expect compliments when you've done something right.
	And Robert is fair.
	And above all else, I think absolutely no ego can admit when he may have gotten things not right.
	So with that said, Robert, I just don't want anyone thinking I don't bring up a super chat to protect you.
	You have thicker skin than I do, but even I can respond to that.
	I love how Kyle's split-second decision is called into question after he was struck multiple times in the head.
	That is something which I'm surprised, Robert, field this one for me.
	They never got medical on Rittenhouse to determine whether or not he was concussed from the two strikes to the head.
	The way he described things, I thought he established the factual predicate for that.
	And so they could have had medical testimony to say, under this condition, he's concussed.
	He has limitations in his perceptions, and so on and so forth.
	And I thought it would have been a good idea.
	There were some other things that I would have done things differently.
	But I thought, again, Richards was 10 out of 10 for Richards.
	And I thought he highlighted his strengths, stayed away from some of his limitations, and gave a very good closing argument.
	And much better than Little Binger and Sarah Krause.
	There's no question.
	It was good.
	The only thing is now you look back and you say two major critiques of Richards and the defense was absence of objections in a timely manner and Kyle testifying.
	Other than those two big critiques, I mean, what if you had to pick one mistake that the defense made other than those two, arguably, what would the third one be?
	Well, my view was this was always a jury selection case.
	So go with the best possible jury selection team.
	So I thought they took a gamble by going a different route.
	Hopefully it doesn't matter.
	And now because I bring up the flattering ones as well, although in fairness it's 99.99% flattering to 0.01% critique.
	Don't listen to the crazy Canuck.
	Was he Canuck Randy?
	I don't think it was Canadian.
	So we're not very polite for a Canadian.
	So you can understand the state of mind.
	The poor guy's been under Trudeau rule for a little too long.
	Well, in Canada, you have to ban antiquated historical weapons that have never been used for any meaningful purpose.
	Yes, we have our own levels of stress, and I don't actually...
	I will be sympathetic to everybody out there.
	Until evidence to the contrary.
	Everyone is dealing with their own stresses and it materializes in different ways.
	Mr. Tech, would you agree?
	Oh, this is Canadian.
	What's up, Mr. Tech?
	Would you agree that as much as we don't like Binger, he is an amazing storyteller.
	He has a way of selling a narrative.
	Oh, he was very effective in the first part of his clothes.
	Very effective in his opening.
	Great use of innuendo.
	Again, very smart.
	I mean, he's sleazy, slimy, and swarmy, but Littlefinger is properly named.
	Littlefinger, the character from Game of Thrones, in which after he's named, the other favorite meme is the you don't have enough flair because of his faux hawk appearance.
	Speak of the flair.
	By the way, Robert, speaking of flair, first of all, your tie is kick-ass tonight.
	That is beautiful.
	What was the pin today?
	Call me.
	Call me.
	Paranoid delusional.
	Every pin variation that he has worn looks something like a sickle.
	It can be interpreted at the very least as a sickle.
	So, did you notice what it was today?
	The same I think he did in opening, which was a red, white, and blue eagle.
	Okay.
	Well, that doesn't look like a sickle.
	So, that's totally my projection.
	Then I was wrong.
	I'm an idiot.
	And I, gosh darned, I should just shut my mouth.
	Okay.
	Please, please come and help the Tennessee stands.
	Tennesseans need you.
	Amanda, thank you very much.
	The governor did sign the law that limits the ability for them to discriminate on vaccine bases in Tennessee.
	It was a law I helped craft.
	It should have been stronger that they watered it down in parts for big business, but it's still pretty good.
	And so that's a promising sign.
	Okay, now before we...
	We're going to, I will say degenerate, but we're going to regress into random questions.
	So anyone in the chat, if we have not addressed anything on what we saw today...
	Stick the comment in, stick the question in, we'll get to it.
	And other than that, I mean, Robert, we're waiting for a judgment now.
	They've called in the National Guard.
	My white pill, maybe my naive perspective is that there will not be rioting one way or the other.
	I unfortunately, I say fortunately, I don't think there's going to be rioting one way or the other.
	This acquittal is going to be obvious if it comes, and a conviction.
	I don't think the people who are going to be angry about a conviction are going to take to the streets in the way that we've seen other groups do.
	So it'll be a conviction followed by the law, or it'll be an acquittal followed by some pissing and moaning by some groups, but by and large, some recognition by even the mainstream media.
	But Robert, how do you see this playing out going forward?
	So, I mean, I think there'll be an acquittal tomorrow.
	And if this is a fair, honest jury, that's precisely what will happen.
	If it gets dragged out, that means there's a risk of a mistrial.
	Unless they picked a bad jury, I cannot imagine convictions, period.
	So I think it's acquittals or a mistrial, hopefully acquittals.
	And I think you're already starting to see some media mea culpas amongst those who are capable of making them.
	And we'll see how it goes.
	I mean, there'll be people who continue to lie about the kid, but some of them will face consequences potentially in the court of law, not just in the court of public opinion.
	On the Alex Jones issue, Alex Jones was again denied.
	He's been denied his free speech rights, denied his due process rights, and now denied his jury trial rights in both Texas and Connecticut.
	I did not hear that.
	So the judge said, no jury, I will hear this case.
	No, issued a default judgment against him.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Even though he produced over a million pages of documents, text, and emails, produced a full library of hours upon hours upon hours of videos.
	And he and other people as part of his case sat for hours and hours and days and days of depositions.
	And they're claiming he didn't participate in discovery.
	Those are courts lying.
	That's what they're doing.
	They're lying because they're unable and incapable of doing impartial justice because the name is Alex Jones.
	How many constitutional rights of his are they going to violate?
	They've already violated his First Amendment rights, already violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
	Now they're violating his Seventh Amendment rights.
	What other rights are there to violate?
	So the courts think Alex Jones is on trial, the courts are on trial, and so far they're failing.
	So we had discussed the judgment by default, so it was an appeal of that judgment by default?
	Well, no, that was the Texas case.
	The Connecticut case went and did the same thing.
	Okay, sorry.
	So, yeah, I'm not up to speed on that.
	And so, yep, okay.
	And so what happens now?
	Rhino Republican judge in name only in Connecticut.
	One of the more corrupt states in the country and is proving so in this case.
	So we'll see if the higher courts ever do the right thing.
	Hopefully at least there'll be a jury trial on damages.
	Not clear in Connecticut.
	They might try to deny him that too.
	At least in Texas there'll be a jury trial on damages and we'll see how that goes.
	But you know at some point the courts have his First Amendment rights have already been violated.
	His due process rights have already been violated and this is now his jury trial rights are violated.
	They're just making a joke out of justice.
	Every criticism that anybody associated with Alex Jones has made of the courts, the courts have proven that criticism was precisely right, and if anything, understated how bad the courts are.
	Yeah, but Robert, so what happens?
	I mean, other than seeing the weaponizing of the system to the point of undermining the system, to the point where the system no longer exists, what then?
	I mean, I don't want to resort to Michael Malick's anarchy, but what then?
	Speaking of which, I'll be on Michael Malice on Wednesday for his You're Welcome discussing this case and the Rittenhouse case.
	So hold on.
	Malice, is it live, You're Welcome?
	No, it's pre-tape, You're Welcome.
	Okay, so he's going to be publishing at what time Wednesday?
	I don't know.
	I know sometime Wednesday.
	I think like late morning, noon.
	Okay, so day after tomorrow, people, Barnes is going to be on Malice, and that's going to be amazing.
	Okay, that'll be fantastic.
	You can watch Malice in live time be increasingly shocked by how bad the media has lied about Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Well, I think he knew, but he's got an open mind to saying he thought he knew, but it was even worse.
	He assumed that what he was seeing was exaggeration.
	He's like, it can't really be that bad, right?
	Nope, it's worse, and it's even worse, and it's even worse.
	Okay, now I'll bring this one up.
	If it comes back a hung jury, can the judge dismiss with prejudice?
	Yes, we discussed that, and he can.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Based on the earlier governmental misconduct.
	Okay.
	100% convinced that Kyle doesn't get a full acquittal.
	Maybe any he gets are clustered toward the second situation.
	I don't trust people.
	The jurors that were open to persuasion.
	Based on what happened in this case, we'll absolutely acquit.
	So the only question is whether there's a bunch of bad jurors on that case.
	And April Stoiber says, you're on point, Barnes.
	I'm from Kenosha County.
	And that's exactly what I was thinking today watching Richards.
	It was very Wisconsin.
	You know, I will never be able to hear Richards again without hearing Nick Riccata's imitation of Richards.
	It is stuck in my head.
	What was the word that he was saying today that had...
	Oh, Havoc.
	Havoc and Ruff.
	Ruff.
	And I don't want to make fun of accents.
	He had a bunch of Wisconsin.
	No, I thought that was great for him.
	Talk like you talk at a bar in Wisconsin because that's who that Jerry Poole comes from.
	That's his strength.
	That's who he is.
	That's how he grew up.
	That you're the honest, authentic Wisconsinite standing up for honest, authentic Wisconsin values and Binger's the schmuck who belongs in Chicago on a news station, not trying cases.
	Well, it was...
	No, I just...
	I don't want to make fun of accents because, first of all, some people are more sensitive to accents than others.
	Make fun of French Canadians for their accents.
	It's not funny in Quebec.
	Oh, really?
	The Wisconsinites are proud of their...
	Wisconsin, they're proud of their accent.
	They have no shame of it whatsoever.
	They're like Southerners.
	They like their accent.
	Well, first of all, I love their accent too because it's reminiscent of the stereotypical Canadian accent.
	But when a Canadian makes fun of the Canadian accent, it's like...
	It's like hierarchy, sort of superiority complex.
	The Canadians without the accent making fun of the Canadians with the accent.
	So I don't do it, but it is funny to listen to.
	And I like the accent.
	It reminds me of Fargo.
	It reminds me...
	I don't hear that accent and think pretentiousness and insincerity.
	I think the exact opposite, but that might be my own bias.
	No, I think that's very true.
	That's just true.
	Let's see this.
	Ha ha ha.
	Viva was a lefty blue-pilled NPC until a few months ago.
	Well played.
	Well, John Smith, you must be new, and that's fine.
	Welcome to the channel.
	My red-pilling...
	Yeah, it started more than a few months ago.
	Let's see.
	Let's see.
	Viva Fry, you know it's not really a suppositive...
	Don't tell me how to spend my Saturday nights, people.
	I know what I'm doing.
	Okay.
	It's interesting how Rittenhouse trial has done more to convince America of the corruption of the system than a year of writing.
	That is the white pill moment.
	People are seeing...
	Robert, are we doing a live chat on Locals right now?
	Yes, there's a live chat on Locals.
	Hold on.
	A live chat where?
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com I've got the new Viva Barnes Law ending for my vlogs going forward because I have longer hair now.
	I've got to get an updated version.
	So let's see what we've got here.
	I mean, this has been glorious to listen to.
	Can they have an acquittal on the top charges and a hung on the lower counts?
	Or is it a mistrial or an acquittal in total?
	Any thing they have a verdict on is final.
	So you could have acquittals on four counts and a mistrial on one count.
	That absolutely can occur.
	And then those four counts are down.
	The only thing they could retry is the one count, which I could not see them doing that.
	Talex001, the meme master of AvivaBarnesLaw.locals.com says, must admit, I want to be optimistic because I cannot see how they can vote guilty.
	But then again, supposedly 81 million voters voted for Biden.
	A bit nervous.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	No criticizing election outcome advice.
	Election fortification.
	Which, Robert, I'm so glad that we got all of those videos in before they changed the rules on YouTube because it's all there.
	Unless they retroactively try to penalize you for double jeopardy.
	We've got a really great consulting.
	Welcome to the membership of the channel.
	Don't expect much.
	Sneak peeks.
	Occasional pics of my dog.
	I got some good ones today.
	Legitimate criticism of the prosecutors.
	How much of this is on the DA and what's the blowback?
	First of all, who is the DA in this?
	Because Binger's the ADA, right?
	The assistant district attorney?
	The head DA always loves to try big high-profile cases unless he thinks he might lose.
	And so that's why, you know, he didn't bring the case.
	So I think Little Binger acquittals would highlight Little Binger's misconduct in this case that brought about this case in the first place.
	And I think both his political and legal future would be deservedly seriously in jeopardy.
	All right, and I'm going to read this in French, then I'm going to translate.
	Burl Osborne, first of all, thank you very much for bringing in the French.
	Monsieur Robert Barnes, Esquire.
	It's a professional.
	It says, Robert Barnes, Esquire is a professional and that is visible or clear from the manner in which he shows respect and respects.
	I now like French.
	With me, it's beautiful because I have a...
	I don't even know how to qualify my accent.
	Can a lone jury holdout voluntarily get six so they can be replaced?
	Robert, I don't even know what that means.
	Yes, the six alternate jurors are staying there.
	They'll be at the court every single day in case they need any of the six.
	Oh, God.
	Alternate juror sounds like...
	Never mind.
	I won't finish my thought there.
	Alternate juror sounds like, hey, I don't want to do this.
	Will someone else come and do this?
	And I'm going to play six so that someone else comes and does my dirty work for me.
	The alternate jurors have been listening and seeing everything day in and day out, correct?
	Yes.
	Where do they sit, physically speaking, in the courtroom?
	Nobody knew who the alternates were until the end of business today.
	Oh, very interesting.
	Okay.
	They picked them from a random wheel, which 12 would sit as the final juror.
	Okay.
	What's the take on the prosecution's slow-walking possible defense witnesses?
	Witness prosecution so that defense couldn't call him due to Fifth Amendment.
	I think we talked about this, but Robert?
	That was exactly what they did.
	They brought charges against Siminski to put him on ice so that he couldn't testify in the case.
	And then they used the fact to say as their excuse that they couldn't call him in the case when it was their own conduct that led to that.
	Do you all think the prosecutors genuinely believe in their arguments and that Kyle is a bad guy?
	Or are they just doing their job?
	I think no to both.
	They're not doing their job and they don't believe it.
	They're liars.
	And this is a political prosecution, as was seen from day one, when Binger shook his head to the judges.
	Emily Baker made a very good point.
	You don't have someone you're scared of just walking around in the jury panel, walking around while they're doing the video exhibits right near next to the judge and everybody else.
	They know that kid is no threat to anybody.
	Nobody was scared for a moment.
	I saw that picture.
	And the only reason I don't like that picture is because it's going to lend fuel to the fire that the judge is biased.
	That the judge...
	Well, it's now also going to be an ultimate meme.
	So, like, the current popular meme of that is Kyle and the judge playing Call of Duty.
	Dear God.
	The internet is not only great for aggregate...
	That's from our board.
	It's great for aggregate humor.
	It's from our board at...
	Locals.com.
	We have some of the best meme masters in the world and humor masters because the internet is great for aggregate knowledge and aggregate humor.
	Humor is nothing more to quote The Simpsons from a well-placed comment insightfully put at a totally opportune moment.
	I blew it.
	But the bottom line is you don't have to make the joke to know the joke at any given point in time.
	That is fantastic to see the judge.
	Because we've all seen the picture.
	Rittenhouse is literally over the shoulder of the judge, who quite clearly, for obvious reasons, by the way, it's not presumption of innocence of Kyle.
	It's that he knows the security that has gone through.
	But even still, you can still kill someone with your bare hands in no time at all.
	What Emily Baker said is that in her murder trials, she would never let a defendant get anywhere near the court, the judge, or herself like that.
	And it's a sign that this is not a scary person and they know he's not.
	I barely let my wife get that close to me.
	Okay.
	That's a joke.
	She will strangle me every now and again when I do behave badly.
	The court case never answered the most important question.
	God damn.
	I didn't read this one before bringing it up either.
	I'll tell you who gave him the pass.
	Everyone around him.
	Because they heard him say it.
	They looked at him and they said ally or enemy.
	Regardless of how he's actually behaving.
	And we said, oh, he's with us.
	Well, then he gets the pass.
	And if it had been anybody else who looked like the other side, no pass.
	There would have been no pass in a million years.
	Okay, I want to bring up some non-super chat.
	What about Binger telling him to fire up into the air?
	Okay, yeah.
	There's some stuff in this trial that could not be believed that Zeminski...
	Firing a random shot into the air within two and a half seconds of Rosenbaum getting shot.
	Irrelevant.
	Kyle admitted he wasn't scared by that.
	My biggest issue with that, and it never came up and I would have raised the argument, that firing the shot into the air does not necessarily need to be provocative to Rittenhouse, but rather to everyone around them.
	And that is a starter pistol to mob mentality, and Zeminski knew it, and it played out.
	And I think it's why there's immediate shots after Kyle has to defend himself against Rosenbaum, is it's a signal to the whole crowd, go get that kid.
	Is no one going to mention the fact that Kyle was protecting the business of non-white owners?
	Where are mainstream media on that fact?
	Minority and immigrant-owned businesses.
	Minority-owned businesses and immigrant-owned businesses.
	The media has been silent about that throughout the case.
	Destroyed.
	And obliterated in BLM protests.
	These are people, and they're not getting compensated people, because, Robert, you know better than I do, but I know under Canadian law, typically certain events are not covered by insurance.
	Riots are one of them.
	And these people, they're not seeing, they might see 10 cents on the dollar for other ancillary claims that are covered.
	They're not getting it for riots, and nobody cares.
	Nobody cares.
	Apparently, Binger would have picked up the weapon.
	Touché!
	Hold on.
	Lesgo Brandon.
	Oh, I'm such an idiot.
	I didn't even get it.
	But well done, sir.
	Well done.
	You got me to say Lesgo Brandon.
	Lesgo Brandon.
	And what we got here?
	Okay, that's the obvious one.
	I mean, that's the obvious joke.
	When Binger puts his finger on the tringer, that tringer was on purpose.
	You don't do that within three weeks of an actual...
	If I'm in the jury, I'm flipping my lid and I'm wondering, how can I file a complaint against Binger right now?
	That's what I'm thinking as a jury member.
	For me.
	I'm neurotic and deal with it as you may.
	Don't eat that red pill suppository because of this.
	Okay, touche.
	And the rebuttal tactic was an attempt to shame the jury into guilt-finding.
	Public shaming is one of their favorite weapons.
	Robert, you touched on it, but...
	I mean, yeah, what do you say?
	Yeah, it was screaming to their supporters on the jury, you better hold out.
	That's what that was.
	In a defense of themselves, too.
	Personally and professionally.
	But it was not a persuasive argument of any kind to convict Kyle of anything.
	And do you anticipate more riots if found not guilty?
	I don't.
	Robert, what do you think?
	A lot of people had to come from out of town.
	So, you know, they were not a lot of...
	There were a lot of people that were not from Kenosha there, causing them the greatest violence.
	And I don't see that reoccurring in Kenosha.
	It's rare for Kenosha.
	This was big city, different dynamic.
	But, you know, Kenosha, I don't see it.
	And I just love the fact that they're highlighting now to Kenosha's, hey dudes, when we want to, we can mobilize to the National Guard.
	When we don't want to, we'll let an Indian-owned...
	Small business burned to the ground to make a point.
	And by the way, Robert, do you think they're in trouble?
	I mean, I'm not trying to wish anything on anybody.
	Do you think that business and those owners are in trouble for insurance claims or tax issues?
	Oh, very low, likely.
	Not as long as the Biden Justice Department's running the show.
	Well, but they might be pissed at them for not giving the compelling testimony they demanded from them.
	It's tough to lie on the stand.
	People don't, especially when you know...
	75,000 people watching live on Raketa until they get shut down.
	Is Binger a new meme and an avatar of everything that is wrong with political cases right now, Marek Zelensky?
	What do you say?
	He's become one, deservedly so.
	It's just, it is terrible, and it highlights what is inferior.
	I can't put up with that crap.
	I could never put up with it as a lawyer, and to the point where...
	I wouldn't physically assault.
	They would not be putting me in jail for assault.
	I would just be held in contempt.
	I would be ejected from the courtroom.
	I would represent my client badly because I can't put up with listening to lies.
	And I would have objected.
	It would have made the crowd happy to object.
	But it would have done poorly for my client because I would have objected to the point of soreness in the throat and I would have looked like the lunatic.
	And that's why everyone has to appreciate what they're good at.
	Or what they can stomach doing.
	Squid Monkey.
	I love that avatar.
	It can be misread in a number of ways, by the way, especially if you have some Freudian thoughts.
	But Viva.
	Welcome to the USA.
	This is how they cancel people, especially when they have guns.
	No logic, no sense.
	They do it in Canada, too.
	They cancel people in Canada.
	It's just that the stakes are smaller in Canada.
	Stakes are smaller.
	Audiences are smaller.
	But they do it.
	Do you think Department of Justice tries to arrest Kyle after acquittal like they planned to do to Chauvin?
	They don't have anything to do.
	I don't think they're going to overstep there.
	And for all of the political prosecutorial units in the country, the Eastern District of Wisconsin tends to do a good job staying away from that.
	They have a lot of independent, old-school prosecutors, and they usually keep a lid on things.
	That's why you don't see a lot of highly political cases come out of the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
	And not to falsely equivocate, but Chauvin did have other objective issues other than his accusations in George Floyd.
	Yeah, he was guilty of tax fraud, quite obviously.
	I'm fairly certain Rittenhouse paid taxes on his lifeguard duty salary that he had for one month.
	They don't have the dirt on Rittenhouse that they undoubtedly had on Chauvin tax fraud, working as a bouncer at a club that had some issues.
	Very different in material ways.
	I think they will wait until the end of the day to avoid...
	Oh my goodness!
	Thank you for reminding me, Tara Rayner.
	I'm going to cut the clip.
	In the rebuttal, Krauss actually said he was wearing a shirt over his face.
	This was before vaccination.
	And I was just like, holy crap.
	I've realized it now.
	This entire prosecution has been an ad for vaccination.
	That's what it was when he said he was wearing a mask, alluding to the fact that this guy and anyone in that freaking audience at large on the streets of Kenosha that night burning dumpster fires was wearing a mask for protection from COVID because vaccines were not available.
	Yeah.
	He put his shirt over his face briefly, not to disguise his identity while he committed criminal acts, but solely because he was worried about COVID.
	I mean, he said it before vaccines were...
	You have to think people are idiots to fall for that crap.
	I'm sorry.
	They're playing to their hardcore audience.
	That's what all that was.
	I think they will wait until the end of the day to avoid doctors to hand down the verdict.
	I don't think so, because I think doctors...
	Doesn't change anything between noon or eight.
	But you know what?
	It would be the greatest thing if they come down first thing in the morning.
	Here's your coffee.
	Unanimous acquittal.
	F you doxers.
	Come at us.
	We're in Kenosha.
	And there's more than one Kyle Rittenhouse out here.
	I mean, that is the message that they can set out there.
	But I don't think they're getting intimidated.
	I don't think Grambo is getting intimidated.
	I think these people have seen enough crap already.
	And if it's going to come to...
	That was another good line Racine highlighted.
	That Kyle was from the foreign country of Antioch as much as he was from the foreign country of Racine.
	And that Antioch was closer to Kenosha than Racine was.
	And so it was good to highlight that point.
	Robert, having now been on Timcast IRL...
	I can appreciate that in one morning driving to meet you for best smoked chicken ever in Harper's Ferry, by the way.
	Hands down.
	I think I drove through three states.
	West Virginia, Virginia, and what was the other one?
	Maryland.
	Maryland.
	So, yeah, dude, thanks, thanks.
	Cross-state lines.
	I crossed state lines meeting Robert for lunch after being on Timcast.
	So, yeah, that doesn't ring true with me, and I'm a silly Canuck living up in Quebec.
	If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, can the judge...
	Yes, the judge can throw it out.
	And with that said, if Alec Baldwin gets tried, how many strings will he pull to get Binger as the prosecutor?
	There's a joke in there.
	Jokes that I don't make.
	But it's a good joke, nonetheless.
	There was one from Peter, which says, Barnes, can you tell Viva that if he moves to the good states, he needs to move to Wisconsin?
	Good fishing and hiking reinforces the purple states.
	Reinforce the purple states.
	First of all, I could be game with Wisconsin.
	There's no question about it.
	I still say I got three kids with roots and friends and whatever.
	So I have to convince three people, three families to move to whatever state we decide to move to.
	I think I can do it.
	I think.
	I'm in the process.
	Zodiac.
	With increased popularization in the U.S., can these politically-based trials ever lead to anything other than mistrials, assuming a fair, random sample of the population?
	These cases will increasingly be about jury selection and getting out the people who can't get past their political prejudices.
	I want to see if I can bring up the chat from...
	It's gone.
	I can't even do it.
	We're in a wonderful realm of reality where I cannot keep up with super chat or comments.
	In slow mode.
	We'll see if we get a manager.
	Is Binger a new meme and Avatar?
	Oh, so we did that.
	We did that one.
	Okay, so I got that one.
	Let me go down to the bottom, people, while I do this real quick-like.
	Real quick-like.
	How did Kyle pick his attorney?
	It was obvious why one would want an attorney after meeting with the prosecutors while boring, going slow, fact by fact.
	We've talked about this, but do you want to give it a go?
	No, I've explained all that.
	Okay.
	19,000 watching on YouTube.
	I'm not saying that's similar to the caloric intake.
	Okay.
	Dude, come on.
	Don't make me say things that I don't like.
	There are certain jokes that I will make, other jokes that I will not entertain.
	Sir, you tricked me into bringing that up, that chat.
	Has the judge yet ruled on the motion to dismiss with prejudice?
	So, good question.
	When does the judge rule on that motion?
	What's the time frame?
	We know it because he can rule on it after jury deliberation.
	So, presumably, Robert, he can.
	I mean, I don't know if the defense ever filed one formally, so I just don't know about that.
	But he can always rule on that after a verdict.
	Don't make me pull up super chats without reading like I'm doing right now.
	Richards said binger the weasel on Kyle's head.
	I don't know.
	Okay, by the way, I like that analogy.
	I like that analogy because I don't hunt, but I have a deer head on the wall, and I get...
	I get crap for it, even though that deer head has been in my parents' cottage since 1960 and has been in that cottage since before they bought it, probably since 1900.
	And I get flack for having it on the wall, even though I didn't kill it.
	I just don't want to throw out a deer head because I think it's a waste.
	I was in Rich Dad, Poor Dad, the author, whose name I tend to get wrong.
	His first name is Robert, so I remember that part.
	I was in his house last weekend.
	Man, he's got every head on the wall imaginable.
	He's got like a full lion in there.
	He's got like all these animals.
	I didn't know he's big into exotic live game hunting.
	It's just like, wow.
	I mean, like a whole lion.
	You could put your head inside the lion's mouth.
	It was impressive.
	I'm not sure I'm game with the big games.
	I'm not game with the big games.
	I know there's an argument for sustainability, for raising money for the community, for donating the meat of the kill to the community.
	I know all the arguments.
	I don't think I would be able to kill an elephant.
	I don't think I'd be able to kill any higher order animal.
	I can kill a fish.
	I think I could probably, if I did it, kill a deer, kill a lamb.
	They don't strike me as...
	Not to be hierarchical, they just don't strike me as having the same reflexes as a pig, for example.
	I think I'd have a tougher time killing a pig, even though they're delicious.
	But, yeah, so having the heads on the wall doesn't rub me the right way.
	It doesn't rub me the wrong way.
	I don't think serial killer.
	I just think not something I would do.
	But that analogy was great because it really made Binger look like a hunter and not a prosecutor.
	And he wants a trophy, and he wants it for bragging rights.
	And it stuck with me, probably because of the preconceptions I have of hunters who go for big game to say, look at what I just bagged, a 16-pointer, except he was 17 years old and a kid.
	So, let's see this.
	Viva Fry, I think you also missed another Rumble rant tonight from Mark Peterson.
	Can Kyle sue Kenosha civilly at all for malicious prosecution?
	I got to it.
	Well, I think we discussed it, but Robert?
	I mean, on the gun charge, potentially.
	Otherwise, it's very, very hard to sue prosecutors.
	And while we're on, because I have my Twitter feed open, at the Viva Fry, if anyone wants to see angry Viva.
	Can you believe the stupidity?
	You don't have to be worried about the loaded Glock because you've got an AR-15.
	And they said it, a bullet's a bullet.
	And that stuck with me, but it already was with me to begin with.
	But yeah, okay.
	He was molested.
	Sorry.
	I didn't appreciate the analogy when they use it, and that makes me feel stupid.
	But now I appreciate it.
	My entire view of the justice system has changed, and that is undoubtedly...
	Why they tried to take down Rittenhouse's stream midstream.
	Because there's a lot of people feeling that right now.
	Just by virtue of having seen it full sunlight for full disinfecting.
	Robert, where do we go from here?
	So, you know, hopefully that jury comes back tomorrow and issues the righteous verdict that both the law and the facts and moral justice compel.
	And, you know, prayerfully that's what will happen.
	It's what should happen.
	It's what I anticipate will happen.
	And it will be a good white pill moment for society and anybody who cares about individual liberty, freedom, and justice in America.
	Alright, now we're going to read through some chats and then we're going to wind up.
	You own firearms.
	One of the things that has to go into your self-defense thinking is, quote, I cannot allow this person possession of my firearm.
	End quote.
	Lose control of that, you die.
	So do your loved ones.
	Look, I think this prosecution closing argument was not geared towards responsible gun owners, or even gun owners, period.
	It was directed at people who have never owned guns who fear them, I think.
	Thanks for the wealth of knowledge, Manda Jean.
	Jean, by the way.
	So my grandmother, there's a street in Montreal called Jean Mance.
	Jean, J-A-N, Mance, M-E-A-N.
	The only person who ever pronounced it Jean Mance was my grandmother.
	And I'll just say not to get cryptic.
	She died two months before COVID broke out, and I'm at 103.
	And I'm glad she did, because if she had died under these circumstances, it would have been a different funeral, and she would have lived to see the world turn a way that it should never have turned.
	Let me do this here.
	You own fire?
	Okay, we got that.
	Sorry, my bad.
	Why is the jury not sequestered, Robert?
	Nobody requested it.
	Generally, it tends to put a lot of pressure on a jury, and it's generally disfavored.
	Jurors hate it, of course, and so most lawyers avoid it unless they think it's the only remedy.
	Here's a good one.
	Viva, will Canada ever see publicly broadcasted trials, and do you think it's a good thing for justice in general?
	Also, isn't U.S. justice way faster than Canada?
	U.S. justice way faster than Canada, period.
	Broadcast trials in Canada apparently happens rarely.
	I can't recall a situation of it happening, but it does happen.
	I think it's good for justice.
	I think it's good for public discourse.
	I think it should be the absolute rule and not the absolute exception.
	So this broadcasting of this trial is going to illustrate why it's such a good thing, because you get to see chicanery afoot and prosecutorial misconduct in real time.
	And you get to see how fundamentally corrupt the system is, can be, and will continue to be, but for the scrutinous eyes of the people and the disinfecting light of the sun.
	So, yeah, I think I answered all that.
	Let's see, we got here, Robert.
	Oh, I just, I skipped it.
	How much does the state spend on a...
	Good question.
	Oh, well over six figures.
	Well over six figures.
	I was told at one point in time in Canada, $10,000 a day for a civil trial, In court fees, other costs, salaries, etc., etc., not including legal fees.
	So this trial has been two weeks, so easily over $100,000.
	What does a federal judge get paid in the states?
	$250?
	Well, there's a state judge.
	I don't know what it is in Wisconsin.
	Probably like $1.25, something like that.
	That's not enough, actually.
	I'm sorry.
	That's not enough to put up with the shit that Schroeder's going to have to put up with for this.
	Nowhere near enough.
	He doesn't care.
	He's a honey badger, don't give a F. That's who Schroeder is.
	I like him because I didn't agree with everything he said.
	I just like the fact that he was fair and thorough in every decision he made, thoughtful and considerate, even if it made him look stupid for taking way too long to think about it.
	And that's not everybody.
	I haven't been watching Arbery, but I just don't get the feeling that's the same thing for that judge.
	But, okay, let's bring this one up here.
	Isaac says, please don't get the law wrong.
	You can buy a SBR short-barreled rifle off the shelf.
	You just need to do the transfer on the ATF form.
	Lots of police surplus.
	A short-barreled rifle.
	My understanding in Wisconsin is short-barreled rifles are illegal, period.
	That's my understanding in Wisconsin.
	And if I'm comparing it to Canada, which is probably the wrong place to compare it to, not illegal, but you need a special permit.
	Maybe that's the case in Wisconsin, you can get a special permit, but I thought it was a legal period.
	Fantastic job, as always, from Fact and Suspicion Podcast.
	Fact and Suspicion Podcast.
	Not an ad, but I'm reading the Super Chat.
	Fantastic job, as always.
	Love the show.
	Also, shameless plug for my podcast if you enjoy true crime.
	Not a warranty or a representation.
	This is just a super chat.
	The best advertising money can buy.
	15 bucks to 20,000 people.
	You can't get better than that.
	So, I don't know what it is.
	I've never heard of it.
	But fact and suspicion, I will check it out.
	But I will not affirm or contradict this super chat.
	And with that, we got...
	Oh, ha ha ha.
	That's not what I meant to bring up at all.
	We got Mark Zielinski again back in the house.
	I voted on this and it was 87. To 13% towards defense doing a good job.
	To be honest, I watched Rakeda, Law& Order, where they put the trial as Kenosha shooter and so on.
	This was an eye-opening experience to anybody who was watching it.
	I have absolutely no doubt the takedown of Rakeda and Law& Crime, even though they're relatively absolutely neutral, was totally politically oriented and totally...
	redirecting traffic to the mainstream media outlets, which either have no comments allowed in the comment section, which deprives the numbers of aggregate knowledge or overt partisanship.
	So, no question for that.
	And let's see what we got here.
	A few of my liberal friends knew he was guilty from listening to the media, but once they watched the trial, they were so surprised he actually did it by self-defense, they admitted it too.
	Not just that.
	I mean, the kid is damaged for life.
	And hopefully he can get past it.
	Because he will.
	Time heals all wounds.
	In 10 years' time, it'll be...
	It's that scene we're going to...
	Second reference.
	First was Shawshank Redemption.
	Second is Swingers.
	When they're playing golf and talking about breaking up with a girlfriend.
	And they say, at first it's devastating, it's painful, and then the pain goes away.
	And then you long for the pain because you want it to remind you of the pain.
	And not that Rittenhouse is ever going to long for the pain, but in 10 years' time, it's going to delve to a distant memory.
	Something's going to trigger it every now and again.
	A smell, a sound, a color, a visual.
	And he's going to say, oh, I want that emotion to come back again.
	It's going to happen.
	But he's not just a victim and all of it.
	He's a kid who, at one point in that evening, realized...
	They're going to kill me.
	And this is no longer a joke.
	This is no longer a game.
	This is the end of my life.
	And that's how he reacted.
	And he's on trial for it.
	Okay.
	Robert, you're a fan of crowdsourcing.
	Even seen Swarm AI.
	Featured in this giant beast that is global.
	Okay.
	Have you seen it, Robert?
	I have not.
	That's interesting.
	Okay.
	Now, with that said, Robert, we are going to have Wednesday.
	Do we know yet for sure?
	Oh, today I got distracted, obviously, so I'll confirm that tomorrow.
	How dare you!
	Okay, we'll see.
	We have a sidebar, and if it's not a sidebar, it's just going to be another beautiful stream.
	I think he was arguing equal force, which I don't think is part of the law of Wisconsin.
	Thoughts from the judge, O 'Binger, you and your humdingers.
	Okay, everyone is going to come up with some good ones.
	I learned from Indiana Jones, if your enemy has a sword and you have a gun, you shoot him and go about your day.
	Okay, I don't mean to laugh at the awfulness of this.
	Sauerkroat.
	I saw something that said sauerkraut.
	Sauerkroat actually argued that fists are not dangerous weapons.
	Mike Tyson...
	Binger claimed no one ever died from hands and feet.
	Century of History says otherwise.
	How stupid...
	And especially when they want to argue a different point, they'll attest to the amount of people who get bludgeoned to death because it happens.
	Daily.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	Not reading that.
	I'm going to go with this one.
	Clear video proof Kyle did not point his gun.
	Oh, so there's been a lot of aggregate knowledge on Twitterverse, and we've done our best.
	This has been great stuff.
	Incidentally, Richard's argued the left to right position of the gun today, and I believe that's because he saw stuff on social media.
	Yes.
	And that that was a mirror that was being pictured, not a gun being pointed.
	And that his whole body had to be turned around, which was not what the video showed.
	Binger didn't say anyone lied except Kyle.
	Except the other three or four witnesses, including the state's witnesses, who also testified to the threats.
	Yeah, hey, it doesn't matter.
	It's all convenient stuff.
	No schedule for Christmas.
	Okay, goodness, my goodness.
	All right, Robert, so what do we say?
	Alas, I fear the jury is fearing doxing.
	Is there an honest, honorable jury?
	No.
	I mean, that's not like Kenoshans.
	Kenoshans are stand-up people, have been their whole lives.
	So it's not like Kenoshans.
	It would require a bad jury to convict.
	So if they got any kind of jury that's conscientious and takes their oath seriously, and that's your typical Kenoshan, he gets acquitted of all charges, goes home for good.
	Yeah, Nestle says, if the jury were harmed by domestic violence, Krauss screwed up saying Kyle needed to take a beating.
	It's just...
	And by the way, if I'm thinking anyone on the jury is like Robert, they are not looking at intimidation as a deterrent.
	They're looking at it as a motivating factor.
	Like, yeah, you think you're going to win by this?
	No, and this is why.
	Which is why I also don't want the threat of doxing to become a motivation to convict.
	To acquit, because it should just be free and clear decision-making, but it won't be.
	But I have a sneaking suspicion more of the individuals on the jury are going to be more like Robert than Chauvin, but Chauvin was a totally different situation regardless, so can't compare it.
	They're not apples and oranges.
	Ricada's stream no longer showed up in his subscriptions feed after the stream was cut.
	Had to go directly to the channel homepage to find out shenanigans.
	By the way, George Kirby, 1,000% accurate.
	Because I noticed that, too.
	I'm subscribed to Rakeda.
	I went and put in his channel, and his channel came up, but not the live stream that was currently live, and I had to go click on Rakeda to get it.
	So, no question.
	Now, let's bring in some non-superchats.
	First, that was not the one I wanted to get.
	Does this trial make anyone think that Stephen Avery might have been in?
	Who's Stephen Avery, Robert?
	That's that case that's a big reality TV case.
	I think there's like two seasons of it in Wisconsin.
	I've never seen it, so I can't comment on the detail.
	I'm going to pull my back out bringing up Winston because look at this.
	He's going to put two paws together and he's going to say, why do you show me to the world?
	He just hiccuped.
	I love this dog with an unreasonable amount of love.
	He smells terrible.
	I have to give him a bath.
	Okay.
	That was one of the funny moments in the close because of the screen going stopping.
	I think it was Richards that said something about it and he doesn't even have a dog.
	He was about to say something else.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That guy doesn't even have a dog.
	He's done.
	And by the way, oh, I won't say it, because some people have cats.
	I don't like cats, but I appreciate people who love cats, because animals are animals, and companions are companions.
	Binger, you must carry every possible weapon with you, and if someone confronts you, you must defend with whatever weapon they are using to attack you now, Spar.
	Yeah, it was...
	The only problem is, Robert, I'll say it again.
	They've punished him enough on the prosecution.
	They've deterred enough otherwise law-abiding citizens.
	On the prosecution, the process is the punishment, and that's it.
	And by the way, Kyle was not acting as a federal actor, as a state actor, so there are no federal charges to bring.
	Okay, great.
	Have they, or do you think Black Rifle Coffee will issue an apology for not standing with Kyle?
	Robert, what do you think?
	And then I'm going to say what I have to think afterwards.
	They should, unless they're going to make LaBitch James their new model.
	Okay, so first of all, I will never call him KJ.
	I'm just going to call him LeBron.
	They're not going to apologize.
	First of all, LeBron is never going to endorse Black Rifle Coffee for a number of reasons.
	And Black Rifle Coffee is never going to apologize.
	Because even if they were to, it would be insincere because they did what they did on purpose.
	They meant it when they did it.
	And an apology for something you did on purpose that you meant when you did it is a lie.
	And that would just be another lie to their disingenuous behavior to begin with.
	So that's my prediction.
	What do we got here?
	Oh, bring it here.
	We've had obvious wrong decisions before, like OJ Simpson and Chauvin.
	Okay.
	This is uniquely different.
	There is no argument that any honest person can make in this case.
	Tomorrow we will see if the concept of law still exists.
	Yeah, I agree.
	This is Chauvin.
	I disagreed with the outcome, but I could have...
	Pleaded it with more sincerity and more intellectual honesty than the prosecution pleaded this case.
	O.J., Robert, we've got to get Dershon.
	He'll come back.
	We'll do it.
	And the goal is to have a body language panel combined live stream to discuss the O.J. Simpson case, because I think the jury made the correct decision in that case.
	And we have been floating this as a teaser for about a year and a half now, so we'll get it one of these days.
	All right, people.
	And we're going to do a few more because we're going to keep this under two hours because that's it.
	We have nothing more to add on this trial until jury comes out with deliberation.
	The trial absolutely destroyed the ideas of people thinking that all trials are like law and order or Boston legal.
	Well, so I don't want to pick on anybody here.
	This is probably, it may be somewhat exceptional and there might have been a little more...
	Prosecutorial misconduct and maybe a little more passivity on the defense, but this is what trials look like.
	And when they're subject to public scrutiny, everybody can find every issue under the sun.
	It's why we have a right to public access to trials, because we get to see exposed prosecutorial misconduct.
	We get to see how this process works and the need for critical reform within it.
	It's amazing watching it.
	Don't be disappointed, people.
	This is, by and large, what law looks like.
	Except nobody's...
	You don't have 300,000 eyes on you in real time as it's happening.
	It's just...
	It's not in darkness.
	It's just in some room 1507 of the Montreal Courthouse.
	It's like nobody's watching, so it goes unnoticed.
	It's pointing again to someone unprovoked considered assault and did bigger...
	We've addressed this, so thank you for the super chat, but earlier on, it would be funny if some of the jury members filed a complaint afterwards.
	Love you, Viva.
	Here's some money.
	Buy the dog some treats.
	The last thing these dogs need are treats, but I will thank you very much.
	Nicholas...
	Oh my goodness, my mother had a purse.
	Whatever this brand is here, people.
	My mother had a purse.
	What is it?
	Oh, maybe it's not.
	It looks like Louis Vuitton initially.
	But the V is overlapping a B, maybe.
	Oh my goodness.
	If anybody knows what that is, my mother did not have Louis Vuitton growing up.
	I can tell you that much.
	But that reminds me of my mother's old purse.
	Gosh, that brings back memories.
	All the lawyers on Rakita Stream and you guys, I can hear the rates going up.
	Griff.
	Okay.
	Thank you very much.
	Discussed with coworkers today that this case means that if we saw a building on fire or a person needing help, it's too risky to provide any help because state thinks Kyle should have died for putting out the fire.
	Somewhat of a straw man, but I appreciate the sentiment.
	They want the state to have a monopoly on violence, and they don't want people to have any right of violence for their own self-defense, which is critical for the individual to be able to have, or otherwise the state has all the power.
	Yeah, imagine it would be more like if you show up to put the fire out because there's an unruly mob and you have a gun with you, and then while you're putting out the fire, somebody who happens to be a convicted potato file chases you behind a car, and you have to shoot them, that you're not entitled to do so because you brought a gun to the fire, and therefore you provoke them, and therefore are responsible.
	Relinquished your right to self-defense.
	It would be more like that.
	So I see where you're going with it.
	Yeah, we agree, though, by the way.
	Watched virtually the entire trial over 10 days.
	Yeah, the prosecution is corrupt.
	All right, Robert, under two minutes, we're going to end this.
	What else?
	Anything good on the...
	Do we need to address anything from vivabarnslaw.locals.com where you can go subscribe for $5 a month, one super chat, and there's a lot of exclusive content and a lot of...
	We may have a competing claim for the third eternal truth.
	First one, Sally Yates is corrupt.
	Second one, Epstein didn't kill himself.
	The third one is alternately, Kyle is innocent or this bar Binger.
	Well, we'll see.
	There's a petition out there and Binger's made a...
	He's made a big, messy bed that he's going to have to sleep in once this trial ends.
	He's got to go plead cases in front of not just Schroeder, but other judges in Wisconsin, and they're going to know what he's all about.
	He's done it.
	So hopefully he makes enough of that FU money on CNN consulting, because he won't be making it from prosecuting, I imagine.
	All right, that's it.
	Let's do this.
	One more.
	Do cases like this affect the rates of lawyers charged in the future?
	No.
	No.
	Yeah, if you win.
	All right, people.
	With that said, thank you all.
	This has been a magnificently beautiful, spontaneous live stream.
	We'll see if something happens tomorrow.
	Maybe we do it again tomorrow night.
	My wife might kill me.
	My kids might get angry.
	I read them a book, and then my wife, you know, tag-teamed me to put them to bed.
	If something happens tomorrow, we'll be on it.
	Stay tuned.
	Follow Nick.
	Follow all of us.
	Nick Ricada, Joe Nierman, Legal Logic, Legal Mindset.
	Andrew.
	LegalBytes?
	Alida.
	Nate?
	Brody?
	Uncivil Law?
	All of them.
	I'm going to end it before we run out of time.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else, thank you for all the support, all the comments.

▲