Part 2 of the video produced by the brilliant @0rf:
"Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked" -- from @YahooNews/@BusinessInsider:
I'll be on @getcallin at 12 noon ET, discussing the Rittenhouse verdict and, specifically, why the success of prosecutors and his imprisonment became such an urgent left-liberal cause. As always, brave drive-by Twitter critics welcomed/encouraged for Q&A:
Two of the most vocal and unhinged advocates of the first War on Terror - @JonahDispatch and @stephenfhayes - just quit Fox News (where nobody knew they worked) in protest over Tucker Carlson warning of the dangers of the new War on Terror and questioning FBI involvement in 1/6.
Goldberg was the classic chickenhawk: weak men who feel tough by sending other families' kids to war. Along with @JeffreyGoldberg, Hayes was the leading liar claiming Saddam had an alliance with Al Qaeda. Now they're viewed by liberals as the noble Men of Conscience quitting Fox.
Goldberg and Hayes are barely on Fox, yet the media is heralding this spectacle as some brave elevation of patriotism over party.
It does actually show a split on the right over militarism and worship of the security state. Like most neocons, Goldberg/Hayes are with CIA & Dems.
On the same day as the Rittenhouse verdict, two other major criminal cases were decided. One was a conviction by a jury in Missouri of a white police detective who fatally shot a black man, Cameron Lamb, 26, after entering his property without cause:
The other was the acquittal on the major charges by a Central Florida jury of a black man, Andrew Coffee IV, who shot at SWAT police officers, resulting in them shooting his girlfriend to death. He claimed legitimate self-defense, and the jury agreed:
No reasonable person can deny that there are still major inequities in the US criminal justice system based on class and race. But there's a reason Kyle Rittenhouse is a household name, while Eric J. DeValkenaere (the now-convicted police detective) and Andrew Coffee IV are not.
There are still a few NYT journalists who follow their reporting wherever facts lead, even if it runs afoul of liberal pieties. They're the ones attacked the most. @powellnyt is one of the best: read this great interview on race, class and free speech:
I'm hesitant to post excerpts because I hope you'll read the whole interview. But here he explains how much the liberal-left has changed when it comes their views on free speech, how just a couple decades ago it was sacrosanct. Now it's viewed as trivial or, more so, pernicious:
Powell has been covering labor and class issues for a long time. One of the most interesting parts of the interview is his explanation of how censorship is so often used by the liberal-left against the working class. In this passage, he describes the degradation of the @ACLU:
The largest media outlets in Brazil this week had to retract their articles on the Rittenhouse case because they claimed it was a case of a white youth having shot and killed two black men. They got this from the US media, which deliberately cultivated this false narrative.
I'd be willing to bet that roughly 75% of the people sitting on social media spewing hatred and rage over the verdict did not bother to watch much or even any of the trial.
You can tell in what they're claiming that, like @NYCMayor, they have zero mastery of the most basic facts
Just look at how many people were radically deceived about this case - and still are! - including people paid to follow and "report on" these matters for a living.
Kyle Rittenhouse collapsed upon hearing the verdict in tears, as any 18-year-old would be in such a heavy situation.
Shame on those who tried to claim his tears were fake. A completely disgraceful performance by the national media. The verdict was just if you watched the trial.
I'll be going live on Rumble in a few minutes to discuss the Rittenhouse verdict, take all questions, analyze the implications. Will post the link shortly
Ex-WSJ reporter @Srubenfeld publicly demands that the NYDN not publish articles by @MTracey about the Cuomo/James case -- a case Tracey has covered as much as any journalist in the country: don't "platform" Michael Tracey! -- then locks his account as if he's the victim:
The attempt by journalists to insist only credentialed "real journalists" (as determined by them) are entitled to 1st Am rights -- seen in the FBI/O'Keefe matter -- tracks their attempt to declare themselves a special caste: they criticize whomever, but nobody can criticize them.
It's scary how many people have come to believe the press freedom guarantee of the 1st Am is available only to "real journalists," so if you point out how attacks on Assange & O'Keefe jeopardize press freedoms, huge numbers will say: they're not journalists, as if that matters.