Rittenhouse 2.0: Threats of New Litigation Fly in the Aftermath of Rittenhouse Verdict

In the aftermath of the Rittenhouse verdict, figures on both sides of the case threatened new filings and investigations. It seems likely that the case will move into a new stage of litigation, particularly civil litigation. However, advocates on both sides may be overstating the basis for a Rittenhouse 2.0.  These lawsuits can come with risks and considerable costs. That is why Voltaire once lamented “I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.”


Federal Action

Immediately following the verdict, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler called for the Justice Department to investigate the “miscarriage of justice.” Others have called for a federal civil rights case against Rittenhouse.

The Justice Department does not have an office for the prosecution of “miscarriages of justice” due to errant jury decisions. Rittenhouse was acquitted on state charges by a state jury. Moreover, while some have called for reducing self-defense protections, the jury applied the law on the books. It is not allowed to simply ignore the law to seek its own criminal justice rules. The Rittenhouse jury faithfully applied the Wisconsin law and came to a well-founded verdict of acquittal. It is a dangerous precedent to investigate jury decisions simply because you disagree with their decisions.

There is also no clear basis for a civil rights prosecution. Rittenhouse is white and shot three white men. He was not accused of a hate crime. Moreover, he is not a member of law enforcement or government agency, so he did not deprive anyone of their civil rights under federal law.

Civil Liability

Rittenhouse could face lawsuits from the families of the deceased or Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived being shot in the arm. That includes wrongful death actions much like the litigation against O.J. Simpson after he was acquitted for the killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.  However, he was then found guilty in a torts lawsuit brought by the Goldman family and ordered to pay $33.5 million. Those damages later rose to $58 million.

The risk of such torts actions is that they proceed under a lower standard of proof. Rather than shouldering the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of the prosecution, the plaintiffs would have to only prove responsibility by a “preponderance of the evidence.”  However, that is no guarantee of conviction. All three men attacked or threatened Rittenhouse before he used his weapon. The common law protects not just self-defense but mistaken self-defense where a person may have erroneously (but reasonably) thought that he was under attack. When attacked, Rittenhouse is authorized under common law to use commensurate force.  While Wisconsin does not have a “Stand Your Ground” law, the common law has always recognized such a right and did not require a person to retreat before using force.

There is also more leeway in the admission of evidence in civil cases on both sides. That could further complicate any recovery by these plaintiffs. Finally, Wisconsin is a “modified comparative negligence” state. Accordingly, any plaintiff (or his estate) is barred if he is 51 percent or more at fault.



Rittenhouse does not have a viable claim for wrongful arrest or prosecution given the fatalities in the case and the reasonable disagreement of the need to use lethal force.

However, many commentators have suggested that he has a strong case for defamation against President Joe Biden and many in the media for calling him a “white supremacist,” “domestic terrorist,” and “murderer.”  There is no question that Rittenhouse has been subject to false and harmful claims in the media. Indeed, many watching the trial were surprised by the sharp disconnect between what they had seen on the case in the media and what was being presented in court.

Such defamation cases however are notoriously difficult and the odds are against Rittenhouse in prevailing on these characterizations of prejudice or guilt. It is likely that Rittenhouse will be considered a limited public figure or public figure given the notoriety of the case and his public defenses. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when  someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).

If a court finds such a status, he would be subject to a higher standard of proof under New York Times v. Sullivan. This is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.

Moreover, courts are highly protective of “opinion” statements. People are allowed to reach a different conclusion from the jury in calling Rittenhouse a murderer or to characterize his actions as racist given the subject of the underlying protests. That does not mean that they are right or fair. There is no evidence that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. However, courts give a wide berth to free speech in such public controversies.

Many cite the litigation by Nicholas Sandmann, a former high school student who was widely and unfairly accused of abusing a Native American at a pro-life event at the Lincoln Memorial. Reporters latched on to the fact that he was wearing a MAGA hat and called a racist and falsely accused of starting the confrontation.  He sued and settled with some media outfits.  However, courts rejected his claims based on being labeled a racist. Where he prevailed was on statements that he “blocked” the activist at the scene.

There may be more specific false statements like those in Sandmann’s case but the characterizations of his motivations or beliefs will be the most challenging to litigate.

Bond claims

Finally, there is likely to be litigation over who receives the $2 million bond posted in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Now that he has been acquitted, the bond ordinarily goes to the defendant. However, his previous lawyer, Lin Wood, and his organization Fightback Foundation claim the money.

In a letter sent to Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder, Kenosha attorney Xavier Solis wrote that the money should be returned to Fightback:

“These funds were transferred by the Fightback Foundation to the Pierce Bainbridge Law Firm’s trust account and paid by attorney John Pierce on behalf of, and as an agent for, the Fightback Foundation. Accordingly, the $2 million shall be returned to the Fightback Foundation, if and when such funds are released consistent with Wisconsin law and pursuant to court rulings releasing the bail money back to the individual or entity that posted the cash bail.”

That presents a novel question. The court received the money on behalf of Rittenhouse. The family also claims that his mother raised a fair amount of the bail money. This could come down to a contractual dispute if Rittenhouse expressly agreed that this was a loan to be returned to the foundation. If not, the court could just return the money to Rittenhouse and have the lawyers sue the family for recovery of owed funds.

What is clear is that the Rittenhouse case (like the Simpson and Sandmann cases) will continue for years. Indeed, Sandmann is still awaiting trial on some of his defamation claims. This is why Thomas Edison once remarked that “a lawsuit is the suicide of time.”

162 thoughts on “Rittenhouse 2.0: Threats of New Litigation Fly in the Aftermath of Rittenhouse Verdict”

  1. I agree that to start questioning the decision of the jury is the start of a dangerous path. However, there is a lot to consider about this trial and the efforts made to reduce the context to the moments of the shooting. It’s possible that our legal system isn’t designed for the kind of abuse that people are willing to exert, such as the low-key terrorism that bringing an assault rifle to a protest amounts to.

  2. Darren, thanks for the photos from Fairchild. Get to Vizcaya and Key Biscayne if you can. Dreamy scenery

    Safe travels

  3. Rittenhouse should have claimed that he thought it was movie set, and that he thought that all of the rioters were really just actors, and that he thought
    that it was a prop rifle loaded with harmless blanks.

    1. After they make him Secretary of Defense, FBI Director or President.

      Rittenhouse chose flight rather than fight until he was cornered, offered no route of escape and had no choice.

      Rittenhouse was contemplative, deliberate and rational before efficiently and effectively providing the correct measured response.

  4. OT: I am sure there are people on the right that do bad things, but we have to remember that we know our own government has been implicated in some of these crimes, yet blames the right. Just look at the FBI and then look at how historically and in the present the left uses these false flag operations against the right.

    Below is another group that uses false flag operations against the right and are aided by the left. They are an enemy (as is China who the left is very cozy to).

    Two Iranian hackers charged with stealing voter data, intimidating GOP lawmakers and Dem voters
    Iranian hackers are accused of posing as extremist Proud Boys group members, targeting Trump campaign, GOP members of Congress and Democrat voters.

    …U.S. officials said the case was an example of “malign foreign influence” in a U.S. election.


    1. And WTC Building 7 just, what, fell down spontaneously? I know, let’s ask Mossad. Say, fellas, how did Building 7, which was not touched by any plane or instrument of the hijackers, fall, and what were you guys doing in the elevator shafts throughout WTC in the months prior to 9/11?

      1. We know as best as we can this was a terrorist act. We know our enemies, but the left is looking for the decline of America and its people. The elite will remain rich and the middle class will disappear into dependents of the state. America can join the rest of the world with less than half of what it has today.

        America is being eaten away by those without common sense and little else but hate in their hearts.

      2. If you’re suggesting that Mossad was behind 911, then you’re a dope, dupe, or dummy. The fact is that Mossad gave very specific warnings to CIA and the FBI about the pending 911 attacks, as did the intelligence agencies of many other nations, in addition to Israel. But CIA and the FBI not only did nothing to interrupt the plans for the 911 attacks, but actually stopped (and punished) agents who were trying to prevent the attacks. So, let me educate you a little about that:

        General Warnings

        1. In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a year long probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02]. In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents “organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01]

        2. In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.” Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

        3. Also in late July 2001, the US was given a “concrete warning” from Argentina’s Jewish community. “An attack of major proportions” was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France. The information came from an unidentified intelligence agency. [Forward, 5/31/02]

        4. An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]

        5. Hosni Mubarak, then President of Egypt, maintained that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

        Many warnings specifically mentioned a threat coming from the air:

        1. In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush’s briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

        2. In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]

        3. In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that “20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. “The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02] Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS “60 Minutes” show about a different topic.

        4. In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]

        5. Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: “More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” [Izvestia, 9/12/02]

        6. Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn’t told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered “one of the West’s most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world.” [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: “I’m studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other.” The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for “the brothers going to the United States,” and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that “very, very secret” plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

        Israel gave the US several specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks.

        1. In the second week of August 2001, two high-ranking agents from the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, came to Washington and warned the CIA and FBI that 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent “major assault on the US” aimed at a “large scale target” [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01 Fox News, 5/17/02]. Near the end of August, France also gave a warning that was an “echo” of Israel’s. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

        2. In October 2002, the story broke in Europe and Israel that on August 23, 2001, the Mossad had given the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US. The Mossad had said that the terrorists appeared to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the same 19 names as the actual hijackers, or if the number is a coincidence. However, the four names on the list that are known are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Ha’aretz, 10/3/02] These are also probably the four most important of the hijackers (and two of the pilots). From them, there were many connections to the others. The CIA had already been monitoring three of them overseas the year before, and two, Alhazmi and Almihdhar, were put on a watch list the same day the Mossad gave this warning. [AFP, 9/22/01, Berliner Zeitung, 9/24/01, Observer, 9/30/01, New York Times, 9/21/02]

        1. “If you’re suggesting that Mossad was behind 911, then you’re a dope, dupe, or dummy. “

          JF, I have to admit that I couldn’t place George’s statement together because it would be too bizarre if that is what he was suggesting. I was hoping to hear more after my comment, so I could see what was in his mind. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but your comment woke me up to the reality that some people are plain ……

          We know who the terrorists were on the planes and a lot more, so for George to believe it was a Mossad plan could not possibly be, or could it? He’s had a bunch of things wrong when he has written comments about Israel and Jews, so anything is possible.

          1. There’s no need to speculate on George’s thoughts. George says “let’s ask Mossad [] how [] Building 7 [of the WTC], which was not touched by any plane or instrument of the hijackers, [fell], and what were you guys [at Mossad] doing in the elevator shafts throughout WTC in the months prior to 9/11.” So, according to deeper thinker, George, the Mossad not only planned 911, but they arranged to get inside the various WTC buildings, wire them with thermite for controlled demolitions, and then electronically set the demolitions off in sequence, without the CIA or the FBI having a clue as to what Mossad was up to. And if George were to actually read the publicly available–but not well known–public information that I provided above, he would conclude that when the Mossad visited Washington in August 2001 to meet with CIA and FBI authorities to warn them of the impending attacks, that Mossad’s visit must have been just a clever cover, and the CIA and FBI just slipped up because of miscommunications. George obviously got his misinformation about 911 from websites, mostly anti-Semitic, that purport to expose the conspiracy, but are just the opposite. He doesn’t realize that those websites are the result of deliberate misinformation to conceal that the CIA and FBI operatives knew about the pending attacks well in advance. In this area, George is what Lenin would have referred to as a “useful idiot.”

            1. JF, I was foolish for not permitting myself to believe what was obvious at the time before my first response. I don’t waste much time over many of his rants though I have occasionally bothered to correct him. I’m still hoping he has another answer, but as time moves on that hope fades.

  5. On the subject of civil action for defamation, putting aside the issues regarding public figure status, it seems to me that there is a distinction to be made between the 1st amendment protection of expression of opinion and making factually false claims which are damaging. For example, the term “white supremacist” has been expanded to include virtually anyone who does not share the values and agenda of the left. Rightly or wrongly, there are now myriad definitions of the term “white supremacist” in the public sphere. For this reason, I understand how the use of the term could be characterized as opinion, and therefore protected speech. In contrast, when MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough claimed on national television that Rittenhouse fired 60 rounds, it was factually untrue. It bolstered the characterization of Rittenhouse as an active shooter. Here is my point. A term which was once clear, whose definition was widely-held and understood, can be diluted to the point where it can easily (perhaps fairly) be characterized as opinion. What a white supremacist is to me is not the same as what it is to Joy Reid of MSNBC. But there are terms which have not yet been so diluted, such as “active shooter” which are both pejorative and potentially damaging. People understand what the term “active shooter” means such that it is not hard to recognize that it factually does not apply to Rittenhouse. That said, all it would take is for people to begin to misuse the term until it is so twisted and diluted as to be at risk of being characterized as opinion. Words have meaning and people who use them to make false and damaging claims should be held accountable. It is a tricky balance between doing so while not infringing on the first amendment and the freedoms it protects to express opinion. I welcome thoughts.

    1. You make an interesting point re: opinion vs fact. Not being an attorney I have no opinion. Professor Eugene Volokh did though and he seems to agree, I think, with Professor Turley:

      So saying “Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist” or “Saule Omarova is a Communist” (or “Socialist”) isn’t libelous, because that is understood as an opinion. But falsely asserting that “Kyle Rittenhouse had joined the KKK” or “Saule Omarova is a member of the Communist Party USA” may be libelous (at least unless the context shows that this is hyperbole or a joke or some such).


      1. Well put and I like that. It illuminates the issue more clearly. Interesting area, no? I find this fascinating and important because how we handle it determines whether or not our country is taken in one direction or the other based on misinformation and false statements and ALSO has implications for freedom of expression.

    2. Clearly people enjoy the freedom of speech and must simultaneously bear the penalties for discharging the weapon, “white supremacist,” while committing the crime of written and verbal assault and battery, as libel and slander respectively. Anyone deemed or imagined to actually be a “white supremacist” may lose a gig, a job or an entire career, incurring devastating and demonstrable damage.

  6. Jonathan: The verdict in the Lyle Rittenhouse trial was not unexpected. A white judge who bent over backwards to aid the defense and missteps by the prosecution along the way. Add to the mix Donald Trump, Fox News, the NRA, most of the GOP and right-wing nationalist groups who poured money in the defense of Rittenhouse who they viewed as a “hero” and “patriot”. Rittenhouse is no “hero”. He rode into Kenosha with his assault rifle intent on making mischief. This wannabe cop was inspired into action by right-wing blogs encouraging him and others to confront the BLM protesters in Kenosha. He had no business with an assault weapon so he got one illegally. What is perplexing is that the Kenosha police could have stopped Rittenhouse. They could have confiscated his weapon and escorted him out of town. That would have diffused the situation. But they actually welcomed Rittenhouse’s presence and gave him water. That was a tactical error that resulted in Rittenhouse being encouraged to confront protesters–resulting in him killing 2 and seriously wounding a third protester. After the killings Rittenhouse was not detained and allowed by the police to leave the scene and flee back home. Bizarre!

    Rittenhouse also benefited from the best defense money can buy. With a defense fund of $2 million, pouring in from right-wing groups, the 17 year old hired top quality legal counsel who used the money to put on “practice” jury trials and hired OJ Simpson’s jury consultant–“If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”. Rittenhouse’s well rehearsed testimony went a long way in getting the favorable verdict. Most Black and Brown criminal defendants don’t have the benefit of such large financial largesse. That’s why 90% of minority defendants cop a plea. And they don’t enjoy the support of Fox or you. There are still two systems of justice in this county. One for white people and one for poor Blacks and other minorities. The other lesson from this trial is that other white men who seek to take the law into their own hands, who want to show up at future protests over the killing of another Black man, will carry assault weapons and signs with Rittenhouse’s picture. When white police collude with white vigilantes there is bound to be trouble!

    1. Why the screed, Dennis? You should just say, “I’m a mindless, racist, white supremacist, leftist and I don’t want decent, conservative whites to defend themselves against the barbarians at the gates because I love barbarians.” That succinctly expresses your POV.

    2. Generally, Americans accept the fact that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Dennis believes the opposite that a man is guilty and has to prove himself innocent.

      The videos and films prove the man innocent, as do numerous other things, but as far as Dennis is concerned, there is no way for a man to prove innocence if the left wishes him to be guilty. Such is the case with Dennis; proof, logic, and everything else one can think of cannot change the mind of a leftist whose concern about the truth never existed in the first place.

      All I can say is that an anonymous poster posted the following, which is apropos to Dennis’s twisted logic. I will copy it.

      Headline: “White man saves his own life, millions outraged”

    3. Hilarious! Your ideology has totally blinded you. Take one claim you make: “He rode into Kenosha with his assault rifle intent on making mischief. ” What evidence do you have of this? What he actually DID was clean graffiti, put out fires, and offer first aid help. If that’s “intent on making mischief,” please, let’s have more of it. Check yourself, dude. You ain’t thinking straight.

      1. “He rode into Kenosha with his assault rifle . . .”

        A rifle that, in fact, was stored in Kenosha, WI.

        1. Sam, it is incredible how the leading members of the left don’t care how non-credible they are. That is the nature of leftist thinking. Objective thinking disappeared from their ilk, and is replaced by rhetoric supporting the ideology of the day.

          1. “Sam, it is incredible how the leading members of the left don’t care how non-credible they are.”
            Their goal isn’t credibility. It’s fomenting mob violence in order to take control of a to-this-point docile majority. Take for example at my alma mater where the school let some unlettered buffoon lament about the loss of “two beautiful black lives” at the hands of Kyle Rittenhouse on their official Instagram account. No supervision, no review, no nothing. They had to delete it for the obvious falseood.


            1. That video is no more Stupid than what we hear from the leftist idiots on this blog trying to promote an ideology they do not understand. Two in the group lead the pack. Which is more dangerous is difficult to say. One knows absolutely nothing and the other knows a bit, but pieces things together to create lies.

          2. Then there’s this gem:

            “[T]he Kenosha police could have stopped Rittenhouse. They could have confiscated his weapon and escorted him out of town.”

            So the Left’s premise is: Assume rioters (our rioters). They’re untouchable and beyond reproach. Now, what should the police do to anyone who tries to thwart those rioters?

            Or this gem:

            KR “was not detained and allowed by the police to leave the scene and flee back home.”

            He didn’t “flee back home.” He tried to turn himself in to the Kenosha police, but the precinct was barricaded shut. He then turned himself in to the Antioch police.

    4. I am curious. to those of you who think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty in this case, lets just change two things. Hypothetically lets keep everything the same except Rittenhouse is black and he is found guilty. Is that then a fair verdict?

      1. Well-put Señor Barry! I think we know the answer. I watched every single minute of this trial and various sections more than once. As a retired police lieutenant with 33 years in the business, I can tell you that any single one of the assaults perpetrated against Rittenhouse would have caused any reasonable prosecutor to dump this case and the jurors obviously saw that. I think it is very possible that the prosecution pursued the case knowing it was flawed and that they would lose, because the alternative of failing to bring charges would have been criticized. Listen, I question the wisdom of a 17 year-old acting in the capacity of armed security as much as anyone, and I am particularly critical of Rittenhouse’s decision to head out on foot by himself and traverse several blocks filled with BLM and ANTIFA protestors, BUT.. he had a legal right to do so and it does not give carte blanche to those who assaulted him en route.

        1. The charges should have been rejected.

          It was a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) “Bridge Too Far,” attempted at the same time as the rest of their absurd and destructive antics nationally.

          God willing, this will be the beginning of the end for the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America, and the awakening of the American “Sleeping Giant.”

    5. Absolutely astounding how willing people are to be mindless parrots and outright liars even after ALL facts are readily available.

      1. It really is. At some point you just have to dismiss these folks. As talk show host Dennis Prager says, “truth is not a leftist value.” They truly have hit rock bottom by suggesting with a straight face that we must dispense with objectivity. Being a leftist also means never having to say you are sorry. Enter MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough who claimed that Rittenhouse fired 60 rounds. Not even the prosecution claimed that; he just pulled it out of his.. well, you get the rest.

  7. How is it a public service when idiots who cannot think critically are permitted
    to pollute the airwaves with their wild imaginations? What CNN and MSNBC do is akin to blood libel.
    They are a cancer to corpus Americus.

  8. There is a difference between fact and opinion. Unfortunately many or most or maybe all humans are incapable of distinguishing them.

    Most of the time what a random human thinks of as a fact is his/her/its opinion as to what is a fact.

    1. Humans do the best sorting out ground truth with things they experience directly. They do much worse with things they weren’t there to experience and were instead told of. And, I’d argue “most of the time” humans of every stripe are interacting directly with their immediate environments, and can count on their perceptions for an accurate reality. What’s happened as a result of pandemic social isolation combined with media infowarfare is that many have taken reality to be what the media tells them, without thinking about what doesn’t get covered by the media (99.999999% of real events), and why the 0.0000001% is chosen as “newsworthy”.

      1. https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/20/rittenhouse-2-0-threats-of-new-litigation-fly-in-the-aftermath-of-rittenhouse-verdict/?replytocom=2138218#respond

        I am a voracious consumer of news especially interested in crime, corruption and atrocities. I used to extract clipping from newspapers and paste them into used computer line printer paper guillotined down to A4 size and file them in A4 binders. If both sides of a newspaper page had stories that interested me and I couldn’t clip one without destroying parts of others I would take the page to work and photocopy it and used the photocopy to clip the story I would otherwise have lost. I probably never again looked at these archives but I liked having them that is until my late wife threw them out. This was before I had access to my own powerful computers. These days I am a voracious web surfer and I collect links to web articles in newspapers and blogs and file them in a hierarchy of bookmark folders in my browser. One of may 1st level folders is “police” and under it I have a subheading “killings” and under it subheadings “of blacks”, “Of Hispanics”, “of whites” and “of unknown race”. Under each of these I have a heading for each victim, most of them relate to the US, a few to the UK or Australia.

        Here is the victim count catergorised by race which is of statistical interest:-

        unknown race2

        In the folder for each name I save links to articles about each person’s demise and resulting court cases. The names themselves provide crude statistics.
        Humans do the best sorting out ground truth with things they experience directly.
        Different humans live in the the same nation but in different worlds. Respectable people of the white and model minority races experience very difficult treatment by authority than do members of the underclass. Every human mind has a division of humans into good and bad, good people like us who are high in every index where a high value is good and a low value is bad and low in every index where a high value is bad, and sinister bad people like them, not us who are low on every index where a high value is good and high on those where a high value is bad. Things happen to them that can’t possibly have happened because those things don’t happen. If you do not associate with such people they cannot tell you their experiences and only by reading can one find out. Police are acutely aware of factors that indicate themness, being a fat ugly woman in an underclass part of the city or speaking English with a strong accent for example. An acquaintence of mind was such a fat ugly woman walking on the footpath in Wentworthville an underclass area, a police vehicle pulled alongside and the police queried her on what she was doing and she replied to the effect “none of your business” and one policeman exited the vehicle and smacked her in the teeth. Another acquaintance is an immigrant from Finland who speaks English with a strong accent. He went to the police to make a complaint about a neighbour but instead of listening they beat him up. Police fear them and have no patience with them and treat seeking help as an insult to the aristocraticpolice.
        To a great extent what we are allowed to think is dependent on those around us. It is difficult to think green if everyone around you thinks red. Blacks and white people experience the world differently and most are incapable of understanding the other’s point of view.

    1. Did LBJ steal 10s of thousands of votes? Yes, he did. Ask Robert Caro who wrote 4 massive volumes on his life. He stole millions, too, through his radio station. Did Clinton lie about turning his back on 800,000 Rwandans, knowing they were being massacred? Yes, he did.

      Leftists refuse to acknowledge the depths of the criminality of their heroes.

  9. Patriotic American observes:

    “Fox News hosts continued to report false claims about Dominion & Smartmatic voting machines for 3 months. The day after Smartmatic filed their defamation lawsuit, Fox News cancelled Lou Dobbs program, their highest rated program on Fox News Business. As JT says, Sandmann is still awaiting trial on some of his defamation claims. So are Dominion & Smartmatic.”

    This is a Free Speech blog first and foremost, and yet Turley has NEVER condemned his employer Fox News for cancelling Lou Dobbs for his free speech despite Turley’s insistence that media companies are “Little Brother” which should no more censor than Big Brother.

    Furthermore, Turley has mentioned the defamation lawsuits by Smartmatic and Dominion only ONCE buried in a post about Project Veritas’ defamation lawsuit against the NYT. These 2 billion dollar lawsuits against Fox News are unprecedented, and yet they did not rate even a headline! Do you think the fact that Turley is on Fox’s payroll has anything to do with his burying his coverage of those lawsuits?

    Nor did Turley analyze the legal merits of the Smartmatic and Dominion defamation cases. Instead, he just quoted from their pleadings their allegations against Fox. Perhaps, Turley thought that he should not attempt to analyze the merits on account of the fact that his Fox employment renders him hopelessly conflicted.

    His employment makes him a partisan for Fox which explains why he never criticizes Fox News. Not even once. He can only find fault with the advocacy journalism of CNN and MSNBC. While he will not hesitate to discredit Fox’s cable competitors on the Left, he will not say one word about the advocacy journalism of Newsmax and OAN on the Right! Turley’s one-sidedness is unmistakable and undeniable. And yet he would have us believe that he is an objective and impartial commentator. What a disgrace.

    1. In The Neighborhood Bully, Dylan warns that Israel is surrounded by enemies who want nothing more than to annihilate her, but the world blames her for everything. Israel is to blame always, he satirizes. Even so the left denounces and has attempted to destroy conservatives for 100 years Scot free. We are surrounded by the ubiquitous mantra of our communist leaning major media

      You didn’t denounce their bias. Not a word.

Comments are closed.