MSNBC banned from Rittenhouse trial

[Pavel Mosko]

Wanted to put this on Current Event's but so far nobody is writing News Articles about it. I don't know the details myself other than the Judge is concerned about the outside influence on the jurors, especially protestors outside, and other people who are looking to intimidate the jurors into a guilty verdict. On that subject, there is a George Floyd sibling that has been filming the jurors at the Courthouse, so they can be identified and harassed if the verdict does not go there way.

Ah it looks like the banning is because of specific malfeasance on MSNBC's part... following a jury bus and running a red light shame on them!

 

[LeGato]

I truly hope to God that this trial has a Fair and Just verdict, despite all the animosity towards the Defendant and the Jurors.

 

[pescador]

Wanted to put this on Current Event's but so far nobody is writing News Articles about it. I don't know the details myself other than the Judge is concerned about the outside influence on the jurors, especially protestors outside, and other people who are looking to intimidate the jurors into a guilty verdict. On that subject, there is a George Floyd sibling that has been filming the jurors at the Courthouse, so they can be identified and harassed if the verdict does not go there way.

Ah it looks like the banning is because of specific malfeasance on MSNBC's part... following a jury bus and running a red light shame on them!

And your source for this "information" is ..?

 

[LeGato]

And your source for this "information" is ..?

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461388994298712064

 

[Michie]

Wanted to put this on Current Event's but so far nobody is writing News Articles about it. I don't know the details myself other than the Judge is concerned about the outside influence on the jurors, especially protestors outside, and other people who are looking to intimidate the jurors into a guilty verdict. On that subject, there is a George Floyd sibling that has been filming the jurors at the Courthouse, so they can be identified and harassed if the verdict does not go there way.

Ah it looks like the banning is because of specific malfeasance on MSNBC's part... following a jury bus and running a red light shame on them!

Not a surprise.

 

[tampasteve]

And your source for this "information" is ..?

It's making the rounds now, it took a little while to get out the articles I guess.
MSNBC banned from Rittenhouse trial after bus incident
Rittenhouse judge bans MSNBC from courtroom after person accused of trailing jury bus
MSNBC banned from Kyle Rittenhouse trial
Judge bans MSNBC from Kenosha courthouse after report of producer following jurors.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

lol I love the top most reply on that Twitter link "he crossed state lines...".

It was amazing to me making that such a big deal in the Rittenhouse case, when it was obvious that people commuting to that location for work was completely normal and not nefarious, much like where I use to live near Charlotte NC, people who lived in Rock Hill SC commuted into Charlotte to work all the time.

 

[pescador]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461388994298712064

Oh I see. Twitter! There's a reliable news source for you -- not! You can do better than that, can't you?

 

[Michie]

lol I love the top most reply on that Twitter link "he crossed state lines...".

It was amazing to me making that such a big deal in the Rittenhouse case, when it was obvious that people commuting to that location for work was completely normal, much like where I use to live near Charlotte NC, people who lived in Rock Hill SC commuted into Charlotte to work all the time.

Glad to see them called out by the judge.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Glad to see them called out by the judge.

Yeah they are finally reaping some of the seeds they have sown. Seems like they are having to watch themselves now.

 

[LeGato]

Oh I see. Twitter! There's a reliable news source for you -- not! You can do better than that, can't you?

Hey buddy, I am not the OP, and what I posted was a corresponding blip. You asked me where I got it and I told you. I didn't have to.
I've seen you acting quite the reactionary in a few threads I've posted in today. Are you okay? You need some prayers bud?

 

[Michie]

Yeah they are finally reaping some of the seeds they have sown. Seems like they are having to watch themselves now.

I hope it catches on.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I hope it catches on.

Yeah I can't believe it is such a nail bitter. I was watching Robert Barnes, a noted Republican lawyer and legal video Blogger who has often partners with Canadian lawyer Blogger, Viva Frei that I'm subscribed too and have posted numerous videos of his here on anything legal of Constutional in politics.

Anyway Barnes is an expert / specialist at jury selection, and was working for free for Rittenhouse. He wanted to handle their jury selection, having his own team of people that have these questions designed to weed out people with extreme bias against their client etc. And was trying to be a specialist for the Defense on that issue, where they would have paid him a nice chunk of money to work his magic. But they didn't do that, basically somebody set up a Go Fund Me type online collection account and all the money goes to that one legal team, and they are very stingy. But they are most likely paying for it now, because Barnes believes they got 2 elderly liberal people on the jury. I guess there is a demographic their of well to do New Englanders that emigrated up their, but he thinks most likely one of those two people is the jury forman and is really heavily lobbying against Rittenhouse to have him convicted of any charge but especially a serious charge.
But if they paid the money, it is very likely their team could have weeded out those kind of people.

Anyway he says that don't be surprised if their are some scary questions coming from the jury, e.g. about the technical details of various charges because those questions are likely going to be for the liberal folks on the jury and if they can really plausibly justify framing this case in that kind of direction where the minority is trying to convince the majority, rather than indicates the position of the majority of the jury.

 

[pescador]

Yeah they are finally reaping some of the seeds they have sown. Seems like they are having to watch themselves now.

Of course the judge is 100%, right? He has been cited several times for his strange conduct.

 

[pescador]

Hey buddy, I am not the OP, and what I posted was a corresponding blip. You asked me where I got it and I told you. I didn't have to.
I've seen you acting quite the reactionary in a few threads I've posted in today. Are you okay? You need some prayers bud?

You must have me confused with somebody else. A reactionary is someone opposing political or social liberalization or reform, whereas I am just the opposite: I'm in favor of political or social liberalization or reform.

BTW, I am fine, but you can always pray for me if you're so inclined (even though I'm not your "bud").

 

[LeGato]

Sure, Bud. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[pescador]

Sure, Bud. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

a) I'm not your bud!
b) I am not agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that. There is no harm in having an honest discussion about an issue.

 

[bekkilyn]

lol I love the top most reply on that Twitter link "he crossed state lines...".

It was amazing to me making that such a big deal in the Rittenhouse case, when it was obvious that people commuting to that location for work was completely normal and not nefarious, much like where I use to live near Charlotte NC, people who lived in Rock Hill SC commuted into Charlotte to work all the time.

I'd heard that Rittenhouse worked in that area and also that his dad lives there, so he probably had more business being there than many other people who just came for the riots.

 

[pescador]

"Many other people" didn't show up with a loaded military rifle that was then used to kill others. Rittenhouse shot and killed others; he is a vigilante, not law enforcement. He is a prime example of an untrained, unqualified person taking the law into their own hands.

 

[bekkilyn]

"Many other people" didn't show up with a loaded military rifle that was then used to kill others. Rittenhouse shot and killed others; he is a vigilante, not law enforcement. He is a prime example of an untrained, unqualified person taking the law into their own hands.

There are a couple of factors, however. One, it was illegal for him to carry a handgun but legal for him to carry the AR-15. Two, the riots were already going on and it would be foolish to go into a warzone unarmed if you had any thoughts at all that you might be attacked.

Based on the videos I saw, he didn't shoot at anyone who wasn't already attacking him first (beating him in the head with a skateboard, had a weapon drawn on him.) Someone who just went there to shoot people would have been the aggressor, but that's not what the evidence shows.

Some media are leaving these things out and not presenting the entire story. MSNBC even left out the entire closing statement of the defense, so unless you are watching media from multiple points of view, you will see an entirely different narrative than someone else who is watching different media. The media in general has a lot of fault here.