Ben gives some examples on his show of the liberal media calling Kyle Rittenhouse a racist white supremacist, murderer, and the general double standard for how district attorneys and the legal system treat people on the right versus how they treat people on the left.
There's definitely an iceberg under there. So I just want to go for a walk down memory lane gravy and put out a super cut of all of the various pundits and commentators who had things to say about Kyle Rittenhouse in the immediate aftermath of what happened in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Last year you'll recall the Kenosha, Wisconsin was set on fire over Jacob Blake after the media promulgated a lie, which is that the police shot an unarmed man for no good reason. It was not true about Jacob Blake and Jacob Blake was a criminal and Jacob Blake was carrying a knife and the police shot Jacob Blake because he refused to put down the knife after they ordered him a million times to put down the knife. And all of it was on tape. And the media ran with the false narrative anyway, in Kenosha, Bern, and then Kyle Rittenhouse, who apparently knew the, the people who were attempting to guard a car dealership decided that he was going to go 20 minutes down the road.
And he was going to help protect the car dealership. He's going to wipe away graffiti. He was going to do some medical treatment on people who are, who are injured in the riots that were happening. And then he got roped into a horrible situation in which he had to shoot three people. And oh, that was on tape. The shootings were on tape and we could see from the get-go what happened and barring some sort of extraneous evidence that showed the contrary. And I always weighed on these cases. I really do. I try to be considered about jumping in, in the early moments of cases and giving you sort of preliminary thoughts without all of the evidence being available. Because sometimes you get more evidence that wasn't available. I'd rather be late than be first and wrong. Late in rate is better than first and wrong. Okay? But everybody in the media is incentivized to give an opinion on cases, right from the get-go and without any provisos.
Examples of the media calling Kyle Rittenhouse a racist white supremacist hunting black people:
And so the media in the face of the available evidence suggested the Rittenhouse went there as a white supremacist to murder people. Here's a super cut from gravy and people making the suggestion beginning with Jason Johnson over at MSNBC.
Rittenhouse is basically what you would have had any school shooter. He's a 17 year old kid. He shouldn't have had a gun. He crossed state lines to supposedly protect property. No, he was going out to shoot people
Rittenhouse these 17 year old vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse,
the Vigilante Rittenhouse,
Arm, teenage vigilante, the 17 year old vigilante, arguably a domestic terrorist picked up a rifle, drove
And stay to shoot people. Call Rittenhouse a guy who's deeply racist. Went with weapons to a black lives matter protest looking to get in trouble. He did. He murdered a couple of people Rittenhouse the 17 year old kid, just running around
Shooting and killing protesters. You see the 17 year old who was radicalized by Trumpism, took his AR 15 to Kenosha and became a killer.
Okay? So I'm Kyle Rittenhouse is going to be a very, very rich man. If the jury does what it obviously has to do in this case in Kenosha because Kyle Rittenhouse sort of all, she should have his lawyers on speed dial. This makes Covington Catholic. We'll take nothing away from Covington Catholic.
Covington Catholic was about the humiliation of a bunch of school kids for doing nothing but standing there, you have commentators on these networks with the tape available, calling him a domestic terrorist and a white supremacist. And these are prominent people. It's people like Frank Weaker and Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln project, which has a habit of going after minors. John, Heilemann talking about his domestic terrorists, Joe Scarborough, suggesting that he's running around shooting and killing protestors. You're not a protester.
Or once you go for somebody's gun guys, that ain't how that works. And you'll remember that Facebook legitimately banned links to Rittenhouse's defense fund. We had his lawyer on before the, before the trial began and his legal team was saying they could not raise funds. They couldn't crowdfund. So you could have Kamala Harris bailing out rioters in the middle of the 20, 20 BLM riots. But Kyle Rittenhouse could not raise a defense fund because the big tech companies essentially labeled him a domestic terrorist. They labeled him as somebody who is not worthy of being able to raise money for his legal defense. The blaze reported that just last year, Facebook has banned users from sharing a crowdfunding link to assist with the legal fees for 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse, who was charged with homicide last week, following fatal shootings that occurred during a ride in Kenosha.
But the site allows posts, asking for fundraising for several other individuals who have been charged with crimes, including murder and the like. So they basically singled out Rittenhouse. The Washington times reported online fundraisers were made for the teens legal defense shortly after he was identified as the suspect, but they quickly vanished from GoFundMe. Go fund me said that campaigns for Rittenhouse violated its terms of service, but did not explain any further. Facebook did allow links for other fundraisers, including Mark Wilson, a 21 year old, who was charged with felony murder after killing a 17 year old girl, there was a GoFundMe started by Michael Moore to support individuals prosecuted for tearing down monuments.
There's a Minnesota freedom fund promoted by Kamala Harris, right? All of these people were able to raise money, not Kyle Rittenhouse because Kyle Rittenhouse was prejudged by the media to be a domestic terrorist, guilty white supremacist. And none of it ended up being true. None of it. Okay. This case never should have been brought. Again, my faith in the system is such that I figured if they're bringing a case, maybe they know something I don't, because that does happen in trial. Sometimes, sometimes they bring the case and then the case ends up being stronger than you thought it was going to be. Or sometimes they bring a case and it ends up being weaker than you thought it was going to be. And you don't know until the evidence is in the room. And so I tend to withhold judgment in these cases until the evidence is in the room. Okay? But when you see a case, this bad being brought, this horrible being brought, you got to think the institution has now been gutted from the inside.
When prosecutors are bringing cases specifically because of political pressure, you cannot feel safe. I'm talking about you. You cannot feel safe in a system where prosecutors are bringing cases, purely out of political pressure. If you happen to be on the wrong side of the media, in any particular conflict, you will end up in the prosecutors crosshairs. And it undermines my faith in the system. When it comes to everything from the BLM rioters, most of whom were basically got off scot-free to the sentencing of people on January 6th. Again, I think criminals should go to jail. If you commit a crime, you should go to jail. But now I want to see all the evidence in all these cases, because I got to say, when you, again, when you see a little bit of the iceberg above the water line, you start to think, oh, maybe these institutions, maybe, maybe there's that iceberg is a real, and I don't want to rip on the institutions.
