Tucker Carlson Explains the Most Important Reason I Would Not Have Had Rittenhouse Testify

    27
    0

    Tucker Carlson Explains the Most Important Reason I Would Not Have Had Rittenhouse Testify

    We’ve been covering the Rittenhouse trial and I wanted to weigh in on the decision to have Kyle Rittenhouse testify.

    In general, it’s not a good idea, especially with the way the trial has been going and the implosion of the prosecution’s case. Even though he may be innocent, it doesn’t mean that the prosecutor can’t twist something that he might say or lead him into saying something that could sound damaging to the jury.

    Now, I understand why the defense might have done it. It’s possible that Rittenhouse insisted on testifying. They knew he was innocent and would present a compelling witness. That’s certainly true. He was a good witness and he rebutted a lot of the efforts of the prosecutor. If the jury is honest, unintimidated and thinking clearly, they should see that.

    But here’s the bigger problem and it’s why I wouldn’t have done it if I were representing him.

    Tucker Carlson captured it during his rundown of what happened in the case today. That is – they don’t play fair and the case has been political from the start with media and the politicians.

    The prosecution is supposed to be concerned not about winning or politics, but about justice even if the truth hurts the case. But that isn’t what we saw. As the judge pointed out what we saw was multiple instances on Wednesday in which the prosecutor acted improperly – first commenting on Kyle’s silence despite his right to remain silent and then also trying to get in evidence which the judge had already ruled against. The judge said that prosecutor Thomas Binger had committed a grave constitutional violation by drawing a negative inference against Rittenhouse availing himself of his right to remain silent and the judge said he didn’t believe the prosecutor was acting in good faith when he tried to get in the evidence the judge had excluded.

    There are a lot of people from media to politicians who have all weighed in, attacking Rittenhouse, not caring about the facts, only thinking how it might help their political agenda. They wouldn’t care about the actual facts or testimony, so if you think you’re convincing them to understand by having him testify and that it’s going to help him in the future – they don’t care about the truth. They will spin it to be wrong, no matter what he says, as indeed we saw. They don’t want to give up the vision – the outright lie they stoked – of the evil white supremacist militia boy crossing state lines with his gigantic gun, hunting down poor protesters in the streets. It doesn’t matter if it has nothing to do with reality.

    In my opinion, the defense should have left it where it was last night – with the implosion of the prosecution’s case and moved for a directed verdict. Now, perhaps they didn’t make that motion yet because they had some indication from the judge that he really didn’t want to take the case out of the hands of the jury. After today, however, the judge – who blasted the prosecution’s actions – may have some different feelings about that and about the motion the defense did in fact make, which was for a mistrial, with prejudice, which would mean that the prosecution could not re-bring the case.

    But this was a case that never should have been brought to begin with when it was such clear self defense. Across the country you had all kinds of actual violent BLM/Antifa rioting that wasn’t prosecuted but here you had justifiable self defense action and yet that is treated like this, with media and Democratic politicians moving to crush a 17 year old.

    Carlson makes that point in a great breakdown of the case. His description of the first person shot – Joseph Rosenbaum – was one for the books.

    He also talks about the testimony of Nathan DeBruin that we touched on earlier that just eviscerates the prosecution – with DeBruin replying back to ADA James Kraus that yes, the prosecution tried to get him to change his statement – more allegedly improper prosecutorial action. Carlson reminds us how the media and powers didn’t just go after Rittenhouse but went after private citizens who had the temerity to offer support to Rittenhouse. As a result of their nominal donations to support Rittenhouse, a police lieutenant in Virginia lost his job, and another man had media show up at his house and also call his employer.

    A trial isn’t supposed to be about politics, it’s supposed to be about the law and the facts in the case. But right down the line, politicians and media from Joe Biden on down have improperly politicized this case to serve their agenda about the dangers of evil white supremacists. That all blew up spectacularly but they still refuse delivery on reality.

    Published at Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:00:18 +0000

    https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/11/11/tucker-carlson-explains-the-most-important-reason-i-would-not-have-had-rittenhouse-testify-n473570

    Previous articleWeWork’s Adam Neumann Has Some Regrets, No Apologies
    Next articleJoe Biden’s Approval Ratings Set to Bounce Back As Infrastructure Deal Widely Supported