I’ll pay ya the 5 I owe you when you buy me the beer you owe me! 

touche 

I didn't watch the interview, but according to reports (Tim Pool, etc), Bicep Boy gave a couple of interviews after his testimony.  UNDER OATH, he admitted that Rittenhouse did not shoot him until after Bicep Boy ran towards him with his Glock 27 in his hand and pointed at Rittenhouse's head.

On TV, he's now contradicting his testimony -- that he never pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

I guess we should believe him, since he only lied about a dozen times on the stand, not to mention lying to the police by omitting the fact he even had a gun when shot.

Still waiting for the DA to charge him for illegally concealing a firearm.

I guess if I was suing for $10M and my own testimony destroyed my case, I'd go on TV and try to do damage control, too.   

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse, Slams “Antifa-Loving Politicians”

https://bongino.com/tulsi-gabbard-defends-kyle-rittenhouse-slams-antifa-loving-politicians

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse, Slams “Antifa-Loving Politicians”

https://bongino.com/tulsi-gabbard-defends-kyle-rittenhouse-slams-antifa-loving-politicians

Besides her anti 2a stance, she actually has the kahone's to speak up when things aren't right.  Even though she runs as a DNC'er.

Besides her anti 2a stance, she actually has the kahone's to speak up when things aren't right.  Even though she runs as a DNC'er.

I agree.  I respect her despite my disagreement on some of her political stances.  I admire people who don't just blindly go in lockstep with the political agenda of any particular party.

The swamp is the reason she can't get more support as a viable political candidate.

I'm listening to the lawyers discuss the jury instructions with the judge.

The prosecutor (Face Palm Man) is do the arguing for the state.  He's not only annoying, but his arguments have no substance.  He keeps saying crap like "A reasonable jury would think" and "a jury would not find otherwise" as if those are fact-based arguments.

The judge is running rings around him on what the charges are.

What I really find scary and stupid is that the state is basically negotiating on what the charges should be based on testimony and evidence presented.  That sounds like they are working in reverse.  The state already filed the charges.  Since when do they get to revise the charges at the end of the trial?

I'd think the charges have to be supported by the evidence or BE WITHDRAWN, not negotiated to a lesser charge before the jury decides the case.

Seems like a messed up process.  The DA could charge the worst crimes, then negotiate for lesser charges in all cases.  If we look at the Deedy trials, the prosecutor keeps lowering the charges to try and convict.  They weren't negotiating with the judge to change the charges after the trials started.

I'm so confused!!

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse, Slams “Antifa-Loving Politicians”

https://bongino.com/tulsi-gabbard-defends-kyle-rittenhouse-slams-antifa-loving-politicians

She looks good in red....

She looks good in red....

Ok, so who would Ren "hit":

A) AOC
B) Tulsi

Ok, so who would Ren "hit":

A) AOC
B) Tulsi

C)Both

I'm listening to the lawyers discuss the jury instructions with the judge.

The prosecutor (Face Palm Man) is do the arguing for the state.  He's not only annoying, but his arguments have no substance.  He keeps saying crap like "A reasonable jury would think" and "a jury would not find otherwise" as if those are fact-based arguments.

The judge is running rings around him on what the charges are.

What I really find scary and stupid is that the state is basically negotiating on what the charges should be based on testimony and evidence presented.  That sounds like they are working in reverse.  The state already filed the charges.  Since when do they get to revise the charges at the end of the trial?

I'd think the charges have to be supported by the evidence or BE WITHDRAWN, not negotiated to a lesser charge before the jury decides the case.

Seems like a messed up process.  The DA could charge the worst crimes, then negotiate for lesser charges in all cases.  If we look at the Deedy trials, the prosecutor keeps lowering the charges to try and convict.  They weren't negotiating with the judge to change the charges after the trials started.

I'm so confused!!

Like Deedy, this too should also have never gone to trial. But ethics is always lacking. As in not bending to social pressure, but doing what is right. Was a law broken, the answer for both is no.  Especially since both have video.

What does amaze me is the ability for Deedy's people to bury the case.  I got friends in the mainland who never heard of what happened.  Which makes you wonder, how often does stuff like this happen, we just don't hear about it. That is unless you live in the city where it took place.

C)Both

I was gonna put C) Pelosi in there.  Get Inspector's juices flowing.     

Like Deedy, this too should also have never gone to trial. But ethics is always lacking. As in not bending to social pressure, but doing what is right. Was a law broken, the answer for both is no.  Especially since both have video.

What does amaze me is the ability for Deedy's people to bury the case.  I got friends in the mainland who never heard of what happened.  Which makes you wonder, how often does stuff like this happen, we just don't hear about it. That is unless you live in the city where it took place.

He's probably in "Siberia". . .

He's probably in "Siberia". . .

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/07/court-federal-agent-christopher-deedy-could-face-a-third-trial/

Looks like the ball is in Alm's court. Either trial for assault or let it go. Which is what Flapp mentioned about a lesser and lesser and lesser charge.

I'm listening to the lawyers discuss the jury instructions with the judge.

The prosecutor (Face Palm Man) is do the arguing for the state.  He's not only annoying, but his arguments have no substance.  He keeps saying crap like "A reasonable jury would think" and "a jury would not find otherwise" as if those are fact-based arguments.

The judge is running rings around him on what the charges are.

What I really find scary and stupid is that the state is basically negotiating on what the charges should be based on testimony and evidence presented.  That sounds like they are working in reverse.  The state already filed the charges.  Since when do they get to revise the charges at the end of the trial?

I'd think the charges have to be supported by the evidence or BE WITHDRAWN, not negotiated to a lesser charge before the jury decides the case.

Seems like a messed up process.  The DA could charge the worst crimes, then negotiate for lesser charges in all cases.  If we look at the Deedy trials, the prosecutor keeps lowering the charges to try and convict.  They weren't negotiating with the judge to change the charges after the trials started.

I'm so confused!!

Bongino had an interesting take on the prosecutor today. His take is that the prosecutor is trying to have the case thrown out. The thing that the judge admonished him for is a basic piece of law that a beginning lawyer knows better than to say/do. He thought that the prosecutor knows he can’t win. Knows he does not have a case. And he is human like the rest of us. He does not want a case in the loss column considering how high visibility this case is. He is making stupid errors hoping the judge will throw it out on prosecutorial misconduct. That way he doesn’t get a check in the loss column. Doesn’t look good on the resume. But if it is going to the jury then his career is toast.

Bongino had an interesting take on the prosecutor today. His take is that the prosecutor is trying to have the case thrown out. The thing that the judge admonished him for is a basic piece of law that a beginning lawyer knows better than to say/do. He thought that the prosecutor knows he can’t win. Knows he does not have a case. And he is human like the rest of us. He does not want a case in the loss column considering how high visibility this case is. He is making stupid errors hoping the judge will throw it out on prosecutorial misconduct. That way he doesn’t get a check in the loss column. Doesn’t look good on the resume. But if it is going to the jury then his career is toast.

Ethics comes into play again.  Are state prosecutors assigned to a case allowed to speak up and state the above?  Which means they will refuse to take the case on.

Or instead of wasting all this time, just keep it short and simple. After like 1 question, prosecution rest, "I have no more questions your honor".

C)Both

ren would- at the same time

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prosecutors-crash-burn-kyle-rittenhouse-235048941.html

Pretty good article on the spin and how it might effect the post verdict civic action.
From USA Today no less.
Plenty people only get the spin.

So judge ruled kyle is allowed to carry a rifle at age 17. So theres that...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

There goes my bet.
I thought that would be the only count they’d convict him of.

Still waiting on charges for the convicted felon in possession of a handgun.....