Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 380: Manchin Ease Theater

(+) Yeah! (+)

ExThaNemesis posted...

Interesting lack of responses to the Rittenhouse trial in here.

People have already commented. Further explanations that the prosecution failed (and probably never had a case to begin with) aren't going to change those comments, and you're in the wrong place if you want people to sympathize with someone who blatantly put themselves in a position so they could kill someone, and did in fact kill someone.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

People have already commented. Further explanations that the prosecution failed (and probably never had a case to begin with) aren't going to change those comments, and you're in the wrong place if you want people to sympathize with someone who blatantly put themselves in a position so they could kill someone, and did in fact kill someone.

Dangerously close to victim blaming.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

People have already commented. Further explanations that the prosecution failed (and probably never had a case to begin with) aren't going to change those comments, and you're in the wrong place if you want people to sympathize with someone who blatantly put themselves in a position so they could kill someone, and did in fact kill someone.

My only thing is that this seems to stem from him saying some edgelord shit to sound cool to his friends about wanting to kill people, and he's a seventeen year old dip shit. We all said stupid shit to look cool when we were that young.

When in reality, when he was there with a gun, he didn't antagonize anyone, didn't respond to anyone trying to antagonize him, was literally invited there to actually stand watch (with a vague promise of money that never surfaced), tried his best to stay out of a position where he could get in any trouble and be forced to defend himself, just walked around shouting medic and that he was friendly, literally chose not to shoot Grosskuertz when he threw his hands up in the air to surrender and then only shot him when Grosskuertz tried to surprise shoot him in the head after, showed genuine remorse and worry that his life was over after shooting and not celebrating his kills like a nut, and immediately tried to turn himself in before the cops maced him and told him to fuck off.

There's nothing that night that indicates he put himself in a position to kill someone, and he didn't seem happy about having killed anyone after the fact.

I've literally been looking for anything that he did that indicates he wanted to start something or was happy to have started something that night, but so far there's been absolutely nothing. I think it's far more likely he was trying to say tough shit to look cool because he's a dumb ass child than it is that he legitimately wanted to be attacked so he could legally shoot people. Is anyone at least willing to admit that could possibly be the case?

That said, it was absolutely fucking stupid for him to even go out there in the first place. But I think that he's just guilty of being an idiot, not of being some wannabe vigilante. I feel like people's minds are made up about that though, so I'm not going to bother convincing anyone after this.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

That said, it was absolutely fucking stupid for him to even go out there in the first place. But I think that he's just guilty of being an idiot, not of being some wannabe vigilante. I feel like people's minds are made up about that though, so I'm not going to bother convincing anyone after this.

No, your writeups have changed my mind pretty considerably. Even in the court of public opinion I can't really charge Kyle Rittenhouse with anything other than being an idiot

My take on the case is "none of these fucking people should have had access to guns (also the police are corrupt)"

In other words, standard USA horseshit

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Is anyone at least willing to admit that could possibly be the case?

Based on what you've said, I'm willing to admit it's a possibility. Even if it is though, that's still absurdly frustrating! A teenage edgelord was allowed access to a rifle, and the crime he committed - even if it was in self-defense - is going to be glorified by alt-right people. The week after he inevitably gets off is not going to be a fun one. He might just be an idiot instead of a wannabee vigilante, but his idiocy is going to embolden people who already salivate at the notion of murdering people they don't like.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

No, your writeups have changed my mind pretty considerably. Even in the court of public opinion I can't really charge Kyle Rittenhouse with anything other than being an idiot

Thanks Para.

I'm glad people are getting something out of the write ups for this trial. I'll keep at it until it's over (which should be at the end of the week).

Kenri posted...

My take on the case is "none of these fucking people should have had access to guns (also the police are corrupt)"

In other words, standard USA horseshit

I pretty much agree with this as well.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Based on what you've said, I'm willing to admit it's a possibility. Even if it is though, that's still absurdly frustrating! A teenage edgelord was allowed access to a rifle, and the crime he committed - even if it was in self-defense - is going to be glorified by alt-right people. The week after he inevitably gets off is not going to be a fun one. He might just be an idiot instead of a wannabee vigilante, but his idiocy is going to embolden people who already salivate at the notion of murdering people they don't like.

I agree with this as well. The whole situation sucks a lot. He's definitely going to be celebrated, but I get the vibe he just wants to lay low and not make a big deal out of it. This whole thing is a harrowing experience and he's been visibly uncomfortable and disturbed many, many times during the trial as he relives this (despite people making a big deal of him yawning when he probably just didn't get a good night's sleep over this). I don't know that he wants to be celebrated as some hero because I'm sure he understands his life gets impossibly difficult from here out as well.

I don't know it's going to embolden people who want to kill people, but I'll say I hope it doesn't. I think unfortunately time will only tell if it gets to this point.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Based on what you've said, I'm willing to admit it's a possibility. Even if it is though, that's still absurdly frustrating! A teenage edgelord was allowed access to a rifle, and the crime he committed - even if it was in self-defense - is going to be glorified by alt-right people. The week after he inevitably gets off is not going to be a fun one. He might just be an idiot instead of a wannabee vigilante, but his idiocy is going to embolden people who already salivate at the notion of murdering people they don't like.

This is exactly where I'm at with this whole thing as well. Well, this and "even if he's in the 'right' by the letter of the law here and the courts don't have any issues with what he did, I hope the fact that he killed people sticks with him for the rest of his life and that he becomes a decent person when he understands the weight of it"

I'm not particularly hopeful in that last part given some of the shit that happened in the run-up to the trial (The incident with him at the bar in particular), but I'm hoping it does.

In all likelihood he'll realize his easy path in life is to just let these right wing idiots bankroll him forever and he'll get in on the grift.

He'll be on Fox News in 5 years and a politician in 10...

---

Leafeon13N posted...

In all likelihood he'll realize his easy path in life is to just let these right wing idiots bankroll him forever and he'll get in on the grift.

And if this happens, then fuck him. Not even for anything related to what he's on trial for. But fuck him for this in particular.

HeroicCrono posted...

The media is consistently bad. They are political hacks who don't realize that is what they are. Good journalists are few and far between these days. It doesn't pay well and is difficult, while bad journalism is way easier and pays just as well.

Yeah this is one reason Trump took off, because he was right about this

The problem is people who believed he was any more honest than the media


---

Fair enough, you guys are pretty measured about this.

I think the bigger problem when the verdict is read and he walks is that there is an entire subset of people being spoonfed a curated version of reality that are going to be completely fucking shocked and furious and think it's some huge miscarriage of justice.

Social media is gonna be nuts when it happens and I feel like there are going to be more riots up there over it.

---

Kenri posted...

My take on the case is "none of these fucking people should have had access to guns (also the police are corrupt)"

In other words, standard USA horseshit

Finally we get to the real truth here. Sometimes I like to imagine the alternate reality if the US had sane gun regulations like every other developed nation in the world. The entire world would literally be different and much better off

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

Fair enough, you guys are pretty measured about this.

I think the bigger problem when the verdict is read and he walks is that there is an entire subset of people being spoonfed a curated version of reality that are going to be completely fucking shocked and furious and think it's some huge miscarriage of justice.

Social media is gonna be nuts when it happens and I feel like there are going to be more riots up there over it.

It already happened, last year, when the original videos of the incident leaked, and the details of how big of a dirtbag Jacob Blake was. It blows my mind, because the same people that ignored all the confirmed details, and instead continued spreading misinformation and edited videos, are the same people that were complaining that the fine MAGA folks were doing the exact same thing.

The level of absolutely ignorant hypocrisy at play last year was nuts, and I part of me will take great pleasure in the same happening once this trial wraps up.

---

tbh it is definitely a media thing for both sides. You have two massive groups of people being fed different versions of reality that pit them against one another for like... IDK for me it feels like since before Obama even.

Now we're here.

---

They put Rittenhouse on the stand.

I have no idea why they would ever do this. This seems like a monumental mistake.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

That said, it was absolutely fucking stupid for him to even go out there in the first place. But I think that he's just guilty of being an idiot, not of being some wannabe vigilante. I feel like people's minds are made up about that though, so I'm not going to bother convincing anyone after this.

I mean you can be an idiot and still get sucked into an alt-right vortex is the thing. If someone's so stupid that you end up on the same side as the Proud Boys and end up killing people, why should I have sympathy for them? Maybe he learns from the experience and gets his shit together instead of sliding further down the white supremacist rabbit hole. I'm not hopeful, but maybe! But I also...don't care.

I found myself truly not caring about the trial or verdict. I wasn't exactly rooting for him to go to jail, because I do that for very few people and I didn't have any expectations he would. The fact of the matter is that the flawed US criminal justice system is not the end-all-be-all of moral judgments. This case in particular had so many technicalities that reasonable self-defense was almost assured. But you can't extricate that from the surrounding circumstances which are definitely fucked up. Regardless if Rittenhouse is personally justified or not, it doesn't change that there are still groups gathering with arms for the purpose of escalating to violence with protestors. That's just facts. The systemic issues at play here are bigger than this one case, and it's not something the legal system is even equipped to deal with.

All this I guess to say no, you didn't change my mind. Your writeups did convince me the legal system is even more of a joke though because from everything you said the trial sounded like a total shitshow.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

People have already commented. Further explanations that the prosecution failed (and probably never had a case to begin with) aren't going to change those comments, and you're in the wrong place if you want people to sympathize with someone who blatantly put themselves in a position so they could kill someone, and did in fact kill someone.

This. Or as I phrased it last week:

Forceful_Dragon posted...

It's nice to know that if you want to kill people you can still just illegally put yourself in bad positions until the opportunity arises.

Because it will take next to no effort to justify self defense in any manner of circumstances.

So we can agree that the law allows for this type of situation to occur and I can still consider this to be a tragedy that should not have occurred.

---

People saying Rittenhouse should not have been where he was with guns are correct, but they are also missing the fact that none of the people involved should have been there with guns. The rest of the people involved in the confrontation were just as combatitive and "looking for a fight" as Rittenhouse was, but if the situation were reversed nothing would have come from it, because it would have been "non-PC" to go after people committing crime under the BLM banner.

---

Rittenhouse just had a full on fucking breakdown in court, sobbing and hyperventilating as he recounted Rosenbaum and his friend cornering him and trying to kill him. Court is on break. I'll give a more full summary later.

---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

but if the situation were reversed nothing would have come from it, because it would have been "non-PC" to go after people committing crime under the BLM banner.

Incorrect.

Experience informs us that if the situation were reversed the same people might well have been killed by cops who feared for their life before even confirming they had guns.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

They put Rittenhouse on the stand.

I have no idea why they would ever do this. This seems like a monumental mistake.

There's always people who believe that a refusal to testify is a sign of guilt.

---

ExThaNemesis posted...

there is an entire subset of people being spoonfed a curated version of reality that are going to be completely fucking shocked and furious and think it's some huge miscarriage of justice.

But enough about the 1/6 insurrectionists...

---

Prosecution is so fucking bad and desperate and they have completely fucked up cross.

And now he has almost triggered a mistrial twice. This Prosecutor is a fucking dipshit. Disbar this asshole.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Prosecution is so fucking bad and desperate and they have completely fucked up cross.

And now he has almost triggered a mistrial twice. This Prosecutor is a fucking dipshit. Disbar this asshole.

"I move for a 'bad court thingy'."
"You mean a mistrial?"
"Yeah! That's why you're the 'judge' and I'm the 'law talking guy?'"
"The lawyer?"
"Right."

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Prosecution is so fucking bad and desperate and they have completely fucked up cross.

And now he has almost triggered a mistrial twice. This Prosecutor is a fucking dipshit. Disbar this asshole.

If he didn't have a case, what did you want from him?

---

'Rittenhouse then took issue with the prosecutor's suggestion that he might have chosen the AR-15 because similar weapons appear in first-person shooter video games, saying "there are guns in video games that resemble all guns."
"It's just a video game," he said later in the exchange. "It's not real life.""

Lol

---

Rittenhouse trial update

They're on lunch because the Judge is so disgusted.

So the Defense brought in Grosskuertz's friend who said Grosskuertz wanted to unload his entire gun into Kyle. He predictably claimed Grosskuertz never said that and he was just trying to defend him online. This was fine. It meant next to nothing. It was mostly to get it admitted into evidence in front of the Jury.

Then the Defense brought in the Indian brother who ran the car lot again, showed a video of him lying about how much damage there was at his car lot, and this didn't mean a lot. It was clear he was originally lying. He had a reason prepared to try justifying it. He's an idiot. It was just to discredit him further.

And then they put Kyle on the stand which I thought was madness but this Prosecution is so incompetent it's actually no big deal.

Kyle Rittenhouse was completely reasonable, explained things clearly, and was very believable. He broke out in hysterics, having a panic attack after starting to talk about Rosenbaum and his asshole idiot friendly cornering him with Rosenberg's friend holding a pistol. Rosenbaum directly threatened him saying "I'm going to fucking kill you when you're alone." Directly to him.

So after they take a break because he literally couldn't even speak, he came back and continued his testimony. He said after he shot Rosenbaum, people were screaming to get his ass and stuff, so he was in constant fear for his life. And then he was prepped very well and testified he only shot when he felt he was in danger of death, and all the footage and testimony reflects that.

The cross examination was the big deal here. And the Prosecutor was such a complete asshole the whole time. Like, aggressive with the witness because he's not reading the room right at all and is likely excited and pissed off. He asked Kyle a bunch of questions and Kyle is actively correcting him on gun laws and telling him about gun laws in Illinois as well, and Kyle gave great answers overall.

And then the Prosecutor, Binger, proceeds to tell Kyle Rittenhouse that he didn't speak until now and tried to paint it as cowardice or hiding something. The Judge dismissed everyone because this is a MASSIVE VIOLATION OF THE LAW. Binger is a seasoned Prosecutor and he knows very well that Kyle has fifth amendment rights and used them. And he tried to paint it as him being a coward to paint the Jury. The Judge told Binger that he was being unethical and that this could be sent for mistrial.

Bizarrely, when they came back Binger also tried to hit Kyle with claims of HE WAS VIOLENT BECAUSE OF VIDEO GAMES. I shit you not, he spent minutes talking about Call of Duty and Kyle was just like "Yeah but video games aren't real life." Binger looks like such a complete piece of shit, slimy asshole by this point. He also showed Kyle's terrible TikTok account name, 4doorsmorewhores, which he may actually deserve to go to jail for. I should say that the Defense prepped him for cross examination INCREDIBLY well. Major props to them.

And then Binger makes Kyle list all the things he can't use his gun for, and then he tries to bring up the comments that Kyle made before this about wanting to shoot rioters. The Judge immediately shut it down and sent them back. Binger CANNOT DO THIS because they ruled nothing from anyone's past can be used in this trial aside from that day. And the Defense has been reasonable about it but Binger tried to do this THREE TIMES already and the Judge warned him every time. So he knew he couldn't just do this. And this is overtly undermining the Judge and he said it to get it in the Jury's mind. Binger tried to argue and act smug and shitty with the Judge and the Judge, rightfully, told him right the fuck out. He can be disbarred for all of this he's done today. The Judge was having none of it. He gave him a final warning. This can be mistrialed and the Defense said if they do it again they're going to move for mistrial with prejudice (meaning it cannot ever be tried again) and then the Judge said he would absolutely grant it.

Binger continues to flounder and fail to get Kyle on literally anything. Just being spanked by this kid on the rules and what was going on. And then eventually he spent forever about bullets, with Binger outright saying that hollow point bullets cannot go through a target, implying Kyle should have used hollow point bullets. The Judge stopped Binger and told the jury "hollow point bullets can go through targets, you are misleading this jury" and then he sent everyone to lunch.

Binger should be disbarred for this. Completely unprofessional and unconstitutional behavior. I doubt he will be because lol the system we have in place to prevent a punishment for this.

This feels like it's playing to make the Judge look unreasonable to people, but his outrage was more than reasonable. This fucking prick is the slimiest piece of shit.

I have no idea what happens from here. The only thing I can predict is that Binger will continue to provide the most impotent cross examination against a witness they should be burying into the ground right now. I can't say if he does anything to force a mistrial though.

---

Maybe someone should buy this dude the Phoenix Wright trilogy.

It'd help him.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

This. Or as I phrased it last week:

Because it will take next to no effort to justify self defense in any manner of circumstances.

So we can agree that the law allows for this type of situation to occur and I can still consider this to be a tragedy that should not have occurred.

You dont have to totally justify self defense really. You just have to provide reasonable doubt that it wasnt.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Based on what you've said, I'm willing to admit it's a possibility. Even if it is though, that's still absurdly frustrating! A teenage edgelord was allowed access to a rifle, and the crime he committed - even if it was in self-defense - is going to be glorified by alt-right people. The week after he inevitably gets off is not going to be a fun one. He might just be an idiot instead of a wannabee vigilante, but his idiocy is going to embolden people who already salivate at the notion of murdering people they don't like.

Yep. It's only a matter of time before someone decides to go to a protest and mow down a bunch of people and try to claim self defense. Then people will say "Nothing we can do to prevent this!"

The Alt-Right will treat him like a hero. His act will be glorified. It's already being glorified. It's absurdly frustrating that people can treat people's death with such callousness. But then again, that's why the protesters were protesting in the first place. George Floyd, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor, so many lives treated with such callousness. Self-Defense should be something that nobody wants to do, yet we have people who fantasize about gunning down people in 'self defense'. It's insane. Our culture is truly fucked up.

---

And then Binger makes Kyle list all the things he can't use his gun for, and then he tries to bring up the comments that Kyle made before this about wanting to shoot rioters. The Judge immediately shut it down and sent them back. Binger CANNOT DO THIS because they ruled nothing from anyone's past can be used in this trial aside from that day.

Huh. That seems like something it would be reasonable for the jury to know about.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh. That seems like something it would be reasonable for the jury to know about.

Actually I am going to disagree here in context. Yeah it is a shitty thing to say, but given how events unfolded it actually isn't material to the killings in the night in question. Like legally it is a sound ruling. I was mad about this at first because I thought the circumstances were very different but... they aren't. That would have been a bullshit thing to bring up to try to say he murdered someone given everything else.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh. That seems like something it would be reasonable for the jury to know about.

This was argued in motions prior. This isn't helping just Kyle Rittenhouse. This is based on inconclusive evidence of him saying that in video, and they are deeming everything said and done should not be relevant if it didn't happen that day and didn't directly relate to what happened.

If they bring up Kyle Rittenhouse said that, then they're allowed to bring up that Rosenbaum is a violent convicted pedophile sociopath that beats his girlfriend and was locked up in a mental hospital for being violent just a day prior.

And they need to allow Huber's past where he was a sociopath that held his brother at knife point and threatened him, choked out his sister for ten seconds, and threatening to kill his grandmother, along with other sadistic shit he plead guilty to.

And then they can bring up that Grosskuertz was fired from being an EMT because he was a violent burglar, and not this brave soul who really cared about his EMT career.

This was more than fair, and Binger has tried to open this door three times now, and he knows he shouldn't be without specifically asking the Judge first before the Jury can hear it.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh. That seems like something it would be reasonable for the jury to know about.

I don't know if this is why, but hearsay rules are surprisingly strict. I was on a jury and the main witness was not allowed to repeat things that the accused had allegedly said directly to them. I guess that might be obvious to some, but I was surprised that that was considered hearsay. For example, you can say that someone threatened you, but to say "He said 'I'm going to kill you.'" would be considered hearsay.

---

All good points! I guess my gut reaction is that if you say you want to shooter rioters, then bring a gun to an area you know there will likely be rioters, it isn't necessarily immaterial to the case.

If they bring up Kyle Rittenhouse said that, then they're allowed to bring up that Rosenbaum is a violent convicted pedophile sociopath that beats his girlfriend and was locked up in a mental hospital for being violent just a day prior.

And they need to allow Huber's past where he was a sociopath that held his brother at knife point and threatened him, choked out his sister for ten seconds, and threatening to kill his grandmother, along with other sadistic shit he plead guilty to.

I would also think past violent behavior is something the jury should be informed of as well! Especially if part of the defense's case is that these people acted violently first and caused the shooting.

I guess I'm just confused. If someone is on trial for beating their spouse, can the prosecution really not bring up the fact that they were abusive in two past relationships? It seems like if the defense here wants to argue that these two people acted violently, a history of them acting violently is something the jury should be aware of, no?

I'm clearly not a lawyer.

---

Also, I feel like the McMichael/Bryan trial should be getting way more coverage than the Rittenhouse trial. Yet, everyone's focused on Rittenhouse. Maybe it's an obvious case that should have an obvious outcome, but in this country that never feels so certain anymore. And a man was murdered by three men who decided to play vigilante, and then tried to claim self defense. Everyone's eyes should be on that trial. Just as it was during the Chauvin trial.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Also, I feel like the McMichael/Bryan trial should be getting way more coverage than the Rittenhouse trial. Yet, everyone's focused on Rittenhouse. Maybe it's an obvious case that should have an obvious outcome, but in this country that never feels so certain anymore. And a man was murdered by three men who decided to play vigilante, and then tried to claim self defense. Everyone's eyes should be on that trial. Just as it was during the Chauvin trial.

Yeah the father of the guy who did the shooting was caught on bodycams saying he wanted to shoot Arbery, as well as a Detective testified that the shooter said he didnt believe Arbery committed a crime before shooting him.

If Justice exists, these guys are going down.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

All good points! I guess my gut reaction is that if you say you want to shooter rioters, then bring a gun to an area you know there will likely be rioters, it isn't necessarily immaterial to the case.

I would also think past violent behavior is something the jury should be informed of as well! Especially if part of the defense's case is that these people acted violently first and caused the shooting.

I guess I'm just confused. If someone is on trial for beating their spouse, can the prosecution really not bring up the fact that they were abusive in two past relationships? It seems like if the defense here wants to argue that these two people acted violently, a history of them acting violently is something the jury should be aware of, no?

I'm clearly not a lawyer.

This is different. Kyle doesn't have a history of gun violence. If he did, it could be used.

But this is all information that does not apply to the case, and they are trying to have a fair trial based on the facts of that night.

Dancedreamer posted...

Also, I feel like the McMichael/Bryan trial should be getting way more coverage than the Rittenhouse trial. Yet, everyone's focused on Rittenhouse. Maybe it's an obvious case that should have an obvious outcome, but in this country that never feels so certain anymore. And a man was murdered by three men who decided to play vigilante, and then tried to claim self defense. Everyone's eyes should be on that trial. Just as it was during the Chauvin trial.

I think it's because it's a lot more clear cut, is why it isn't getting as much attention.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Incorrect.

Experience informs us that if the situation were reversed the same people might well have been killed by cops who feared for their life before even confirming they had guns.

Depends on if they were threatening to kill innocent bystanders with a knife or kidnap their children

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Yep. It's only a matter of time before someone decides to go to a protest and mow down a bunch of people and try to claim self defense. Then people will say "Nothing we can do to prevent this!"

The Alt-Right will treat him like a hero. His act will be glorified. It's already being glorified. It's absurdly frustrating that people can treat people's death with such callousness. But then again, that's why the protesters were protesting in the first place. George Floyd, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor, so many lives treated with such callousness. Self-Defense should be something that nobody wants to do, yet we have people who fantasize about gunning down people in 'self defense'. It's insane. Our culture is truly fucked up.

Not sure why you put self defense in quotes there, this is the MOST clear cut case of self defense I have ever seen. You're not wrong that crazy people will be encouraged to do the same thing, but let's not forget that this all could have been avoided if people weren't violently rioting in the streets, assaulting innocent bystanders and destroying small businesses.

---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

let's not forget that this all could have been avoided if people weren't violently rioting in the streets, assaulting innocent bystanders and destroying small businesses.

or

y'know

if police weren't casually murdering black people every single day

---

Man the impressions on social media are so insanely different than Biscuit's breakdown (which I trust).

All I'm seeing is how the judge interrupted the prosecution during a cross examination to ask if they should adjust the temperature, and that his phone went off with a Donald Trump ring tone in the middle of trial.

Public perception is going to be absolutely catastrophic since all anyone cares about is soundbites, and soundbites are painting a very, very different picture than the actual breakdown.

---

Its not a Donald Trump ringtone. Its just a shitty patriotic conservative song he uses at rallies

If Donald Trump rally songs are automatically signals of Trumpism, I better stop listening to Fortunate Son

---

poor YMCA

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

This can be mistrialed and the Defense said if they do it again they're going to move for mistrial with prejudice (meaning it cannot ever be tried again) and then the Judge said he would absolutely grant it.

Didn't know this was a thing and before you mentioned it I wondered if the prosecutor was purposefully trying to trigger a mistrial because things were going so badly for him

---