Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Rittenhouse Trial Day 4: Richard McGinnis, Ryan Balch, Joking Juror Booted​

November 04, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Rittenhouse Trial Day 4: Richard McGinnis, Ryan Balch, Joking Juror Booted​
Show Notes Transcript

The Judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse case excused an unknown juror during day 4 of the trial. Allegedly, the juror made a bad joke about Jacob Blake. Reporter Richard McGinniss is called by Prosecutor Thomas Binger during day 4 of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. McGinniss frames Rosenbaum as being the aggressor during the altercation in Kenosha. Government prosecutor Thomas Binger calls Witness Ryan Balch who testifies that Joseph Rosenbaum verbal threatened to kill both him and Kyle Rittenhouse. Balch describes Rosenbaum as being “hyper aggressive” throughout the night.​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​
✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 November 6, 2021 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #KyleRittenhouse #Rittenhouse #FreeKyle

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live . My name is Robert ruler . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We've got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called a justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here in with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to be talking about Kyle Rittenhouse it's day four of the trial. I've got a lot to get into. We're going to break this down into three different segments because we can do that today. We're going to start off in our first segment talking about, oh , what happened yesterday? A brief carry over from detective Martin Howard. Of course he was the guy who was on the internet, scrubbing all over the place, downloading the videos and doing a lot of the clerical work about sort of, you know, filing subpoenas, getting warrants and just aggregating all of this stuff. He, we finished up some cross-examination from him and Mark Richards, Kyle Rittenhouse, his defense attorney. So we're just going to clean that up, finish that up quickly. And we're also going to take a look at a juror that got booted out of the trial juror was , um , telling inappropriate jokes and , uh , crybaby Thomas binger was out there who came back in and said, judge, this is a juror was telling us, he said a joke and it was not funny at all. And so the judge had to dive into that, that juror got the boots because of the joke. And so we'll take a look at what that joke is. And you know, you can be the judge of whether you think this is funny or no laughing matter. So we'll see what he says there. And then in our second segment, we're going to spend a big chunk of the show today talking about Richard McGuinness , Richard McGuinness , of course, was there. He is an alleged victim. He is labeled as the victim of one of the criminal charges, reckless endangerment because when Kyle Rittenhouse was shooting at Joseph Rosenbalm McGuinness , was there sort of as this reporter journalist individual who was writing for the daily caller, he was behind Rosenbaum and the bullets went that direction. And so what they're saying is that he was endangered and Kyle Rittenhouse was reckless in the firing of the gun, which endangered McGuinness . So McGuinness was a direct examination today, place of him by the government, the prosecutor called McGinnis , and then kind of got into it with him was sort of like, well, didn't you say this? And didn't you say that? And so it got into a little bit of a spicy situation, a little bit of a hostile type of a witness type of a situation. And so we'll take a look at that, break that down. We've got all of the direct exam from prosecutor binger and all of the cross exam, and then the redirect by Thomas binger as well. So we'll go through all of that. And then in our third and final segment, we had another individual, a veteran, somebody by the name of Ryan Baldwin came in today was the third and final witness that we heard from. And Ryan Baldwin , also a government witness was called by the prosecutors. And most of his testimony in one man's humble opinion was pretty favorable to Kyle Rittenhouse. So we've got a lot to get into interesting day in trial. And I know that there are a lot of different, interesting theories about what the defense is doing and how they are handling this case. A lot of people saying, well, these people are just, you know, botching the case. And so we'll see if we can make heads or tails of any of that as is usually the case. If you want to be a part of the show, and you're a supporter over at our community, watching the watchers.locals.com, there is a form that you can see here that is available. If you have the link over there, feel free to ask the questions as we go throughout. We are going to pause in between the segments and take questions. We're just going to sort of check in, see if we can get through the questions rather than batching them all up at the very end. I'm also seeing that super chats are coming in since we are multi streaming today on YouTube. And so M K man submitted one. You can see when that happens, it pops up on the screen. And so MK man, thank you for that. We will make sure that we get to those also at the end of each one of our segments today. Okay. Uh , one final thing. If you're looking for the clips, if you can't stick around for the whole show and you want to just jump in and grab some of the clips, you can grab those on our clips, channel rubber Guler , Esq clips. All right. So let's get into the actual nuts and bolts, the meat and potatoes of the show. Kyle Rittenhouse trial day four, as we usually do at the start of these segments, let's take a quick look at the board, see where we're at, get our bearings straight. We can see this is the government's board. This is the government's case in chief. We see Thomas binger here, the lead prosecutor, who's in charge, he's running the government's show. And we recalled that yesterday. We heard from two individuals, we heard from Corey , Elijah Washington. He was there , uh , the witness who was live streaming to Facebook and YouTube yesterday. We also heard from Martin Howard. And so we're gonna pick up today talking about a little bit more about Martin Howard, the detective, cause we, we get some cleanup from him. Uh , Mark Richards, Kyle Rittenhouse, his defense attorney comes out, finishes up his cross exam. We get a little bit of redirect and that's it not much more from him. We spent all the rest of the day talking to these two fellows up here at the top. We've got Richard McGuinness . He's a citizen reporter. He's somebody who was there. There he is also you'll notice, oh, we can draw an arrow down over here. He is the alleged victim of the government's case, right? He's the victim of Kyle Rittenhouse his crime. Because as I mentioned, he was standing literally right behind Joseph Rosenbaum or, or sort of running in parallel with Rosenbaum . And so one of the victims of the case, alleged victim's cake testified today in court. We're gonna spend a lot of time on McGinnis . So Tom is binger is calling all of these people. Thomas binger is calling McGinnis , Thomas binger called Ballz . Didn't have to decided to , these are strong witnesses for him, a court, according to his theory. Now I totally disagree with that. We're going to get into that much more extensively, but we had Richard McGuinness . Ryan Baltz is a veteran, and he's also part of the Kyle crew when they were out there around the streets of Kenosha, Ryan bulge was right there, almost mentoring Kyle Rittenhouse, as they were sort of, you know , doing what they were doing. We also saw that when we take a look at the full board that we lost a juror, look at that number 21 juror got booted out of court today. And , um, we're going to dive into that story first, before we take a look at the witnesses, because it was a pretty interesting , uh, we're going to hear today, mostly from Mark Richards. I don't think we heard anything from cheer FEC today. Not that I can recall. I did. I was, was listening at double speed. I was in a conference today and so sort of multitasking . Uh , but we don't really hear from him. We hear a lot from binger and Mo most of , uh , Mark Richards, but we are going to start off because judge Schroeder gets a complaint from Thomas binger or rear who is very upset about this juror, juror number, whatever the jurors number is, who was , uh, allegedly telling an illegal joke, which is big no-no. Especially if you're Thomas binger , he doesn't like to laugh. So , uh , we have here a quick update about what happened. This is over from Kenosha news. We can see here. It says a juror has been dismissed after making a joke to a deputy related to the shooting of Jacob Blake and Kenosha last year, what a juror was making a joke about Jacob Blake, Jacob Blake, of course, was the individual who was shot and was a big reason that all these protests were taking place in the first place because of that shooting. And here's a juror joking about it. Well, Thomas binger, highly offended. You can see, he probably gets highly offended. A lot of things. Prosecutor Thomas binger asked that demand be removed from the jury. Judge Bruce Schroeder bought , uh , brought the juror into the courtroom to hear his side of the story. The juror, a retired white man declined to repeat the joke. Man appeared ill at ease, fumbling to hold a portable mic. Now we can't see any of this is why I'm reading it. Speaking through a multi-colored face. Max says it had nothing to do with the case. He told the judge about the joke after the judge said he had no choice, but to let him go, the man backed up his scooter and steered out through a courtroom door, Schroeder dismissed the juror, emphasizing the need for the public to have confidence in the outcome. We are going to hear from juror here in a minute. This is what Deneen Smith, who was actually in the courtroom. She is part of Kenosha news. She was actually in the courtroom. She says , uh, the man after he's dismissed, he makes a statement that also could be perceived as having a bias towards the defense saying about his joke. He's going to quote jokes . She says it wasn't anything to do with the case. It wasn't anything to do with Kyle and his seven charges. Right? So Deneen Smith is sort of implying that this guy, as he's being escorted out of the courtroom for making an illegal joke, he said something like, okay, great judge. Thanks, judge. Thanks your honor. For excusing me, even though it had nothing to do with written house or a seven charges, all seven of them and nothing to do with any of those, not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or seven, or any of the other, you know, million charges that you have on sort of saying that this whole thing is ridiculous. So , uh, the judge excuses him here is a snippet of what happened in court today. Here's judge Schrader having this conversation with this juror . And again, we can't see the juror cause we're protecting their identities here. It is Rittenhouse day for , okay .

Speaker 2:

Uh , okay. The reason I asked you to come down was , um, there was , uh , uh, I was told that while you were being a square to the car , uh , the other day that you , uh, began to tell a joke , um, about the shooting of Jacob Blake. And I wanted to see if, is that accurate or not ? Not it is, yes. Okay. Um, and are you comfortable repeating what the joke was or do you want to just leave it alone? I'm going to tell you that. Um, uh, I , I spoke about , um, but I guess I'll hear from Ms .

Speaker 1:

Okay. So judge, judge ballsy move right there. Ballsy don't know what that judge, what was on the other end of that question? Judge says, do you want to repeat it? Uh , or just leave it alone. He catches himself there at the last minute. Maybe you don't want to repeat it. So the judge catches himself. All right , well what should we do here? Uh, let me ask the prosecutor. What do you want to do about this? Prosecutor says, I want him gone. I want him thrown off the jury. It was illegal and offensive and prejudicial and I'm upset about it. So what was the joke while the hill apparently got their eyes on it? A Rittenhouse juror dismissed a voter , uh , dismissed over a joke about the Jacob Blake shooting. Is there a headline says a juror was dismissed from Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Thursday for making a crude joke about the police shooting of Jacob Blake, Chicago Tribune got the joke. The juror, an older white man joked says, quote, why did the Kenosha police shoot Jacob Blake seven times punchline. It's a joke. There's no punchline yet. That's the joke part of it. Why did the Kenosha police shoot Jacob Blake seven times says the juror. It's a joke Though. It's unclear whether the juror delivered this punchline assistant district attorney binger said he understood the answer to be quote because they ran out of bullets. So the juror says, why did the Kenosha police shoot Jacob Blake? Seven times didn't say the punchline. But presumably the joke was cause they ran out of bullets. That's why they shot him seven times. If they had 12 bullets, they would've shot him 12 times. It's not, it's not complicated. That's all the ammunition that the firearm health, which is a joke. You know , it's a joke, but there was no Thomas binger. Didn't hear the punchline though. That's the problem? Uh, why else could you have shot Jacob Blake? Well, cause you could have thought that he was running for knife and that your life was in danger. Might also be the next sentence that came out of this juror's mouth. Thomas binger is jumping to conclusions here, which I think is, you know, trying to take, you know, take into account something that is not in evidence yet. So a lot of other things could come out there. Why did they shoot Jacob Blake? Well, cause he was , uh , you know, fleeing a scene or something. Right. He could have been in danger to the community, a lot of other reasons for that. So. Okay. So that's interesting here is how they wrap that puppy up. This is judge Schroeder tossing the juror here he is today in court. Okay.

Speaker 2:

All right. I think the best thing out of the circumstances, I'm going to dismiss you from the jury, sir. Uh , and we do thank you for taking the time to come down here. Thank you. It wasn't nothing to do with the case you weren't here. And I have not. I've not stated that you have , uh, it's not, you know, one of the things that I have to do when I have to make judgements , I try to confine my judgments to the things I have to judge and that

Speaker 1:

Okay. So he ends up excusing him, right? The judge kind of feels bad. You can kind of see here, like the guy kind of feels bad. Kind of like , uh , you know, I didn't mean to wreck the whole case, sorry about this. It had nothing to do with the case at all. And the judge kind of goes, I have nothing to do with you. I , you know, I gotta make hard decisions. That's why we pick 20 of you. Cause I knew something like this was going to happen. Sorry. You're not going to be on the jury goodbye. And so that was a little bit of interesting newness that happened this morning. Then we jumped right back into testimony. So remember yesterday we were listening to detective Martin Howard and this was the police officer who got a lot of the videos. We heard a lot from him yesterday and we went through like 14 to 25 different exhibits. Tom , his binger prosecutor was out there just reading through all of them. We got this one from this Facebook user and this one from that Twitter user and this Instagram user and that tic talker, we got them all , all right , got them all those got, nobody was up. You know , it was objecting from the defense. Everything got, you know , admitted, published. We had a little bit of an argument over the audio, which I still have a lot of questions about. We'll see what actually ends up being published to the jury or whether they discuss that in camera or in the judges , uh , chambers, when they were having conversations off camera, we don't know what they talked about, but we go back. We pick up today, this is detective Martin Howard. And now this is when Mark Richards, Kyle Kyle's defense lawyer is actually cross-examining the detective. Not, not much here. I do think we have a content warning. We're going to have several content warnings here throughout the show , uh, because the, the F word comes out here. So if that's problematic, if you are listening to coverage of a multiple homicide murder trial and the F-word bothers you now, this is a content warning. So brace yourself for that. But uh , several of them are going to be coming out today because we're listening to testimony from Joseph Rosenbalm or , or listening about what Joseph Rosenbalm , who of course is dead. So he could not testify today about what he said. And we're going to hear stuff about him, shouting the F-word and I'm going to kill you. And you won't do SMS and a lot of profanity and problematic language, of course, but this is now once again, Mark Richards picking up with cross-examination of detective Howard.

Speaker 3:

I asked him is the mass Mr. Rosenbaum, correct? Correct. And you hear the words that Mr. Rosenbaum uses and you opine that, that is in fact Mr. Rosenbaum's voice, correct? Yes.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Real quick on that, I forgot. I CA I clipped this, so you don't actually hear what Mark Richard says, because it actually, it is profanity. He says, gun gun, gun, gun gun, and you won't do SMS for is what they're alleging Rosenbaum said. So he's something like, oh, gun, gun, gun, you won't do as mother. You know , you , you won't do that MF her and I will set it right there. Rob careful, your mom listens to this program. So, you know, it could be something where , uh, well, let's just play it. So, so this is Mark Richards. He's actually picking up, they jump off from that. They listen to it. He says, yes, that's what they said. And then this is where we pick back up.

Speaker 3:

And is based upon you listening to other , um, videos that have Mr. Rosenbaum's voice on them, correct? Yes. And also what is depicted in the video. Okay. And that's Kyle with a gun and Mr. Rosemont chasing him . Yes. I have no ,

Speaker 1:

Nothing further. Okay. Right. And that's about it. That's the rest of the cross-examination of the detective. Cause there's not , there's not much to do this guy. Wasn't there. He got a bunch of these videos. He just comes back out and confirms that of , of all the videos of those, you know, 17 different exhibits that binger got admitted yesterday. That of those , uh , when you listen in there to what Rosenbaum said, that's what he said. Right? You confirmed it. You listen to all 30 of them and you got it. Okay. Yeah. That's what he said. Gun gun, gun, you won't do SMS. And we know what the rest of the testimony is going to be from the other gentlemen who are forthcoming. So then recall that the government can come back out and they can do a redirect exam. The government calls their witness, the defense gets to cross examine them. So the government is look , all of these witnesses are supposed to be government witnesses. I know as we go through the rest of the show, it's not going to feel like that. It's going to feel like these might be people who are great defense witnesses. And we'll talk about that. But it is something that seems a little bit, you know, interesting because the defense or the, these, these witnesses are sort of having a tough time with the prosecutor today. And so there's not much going on. They call them cross examination happens. Then it's an opportunity for the prosecutor. Come back out and try to fix any damage that happened during the cross exam . Here is what binger said today.

Speaker 4:

He's walking down that street. Is there any indication at any point that he's ever armed with anything?

Speaker 5:

Just the plastic bag in his hand

Speaker 4:

Doesn't have a gun, correct? Correct. No knife. No, no. This is a different part of the sequence. No gun, no, no knife, no, no baseball bat or club. No, no chain, no. Obviously in the end, at the interact, the time that he is shot and killed by the defendant at the 63rd street car source, is there any evidence in the record of any kind that you've seen as the lead detective in the case that Mr. Rosenbaum was armed with a weapon?

Speaker 5:

No. He had the plastic bag, which she threw and then had nothing in his hands after that.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So again, so the prosecutor has done this multiple times and you can hear him. He's going to do it again. We're going to hear when we get to Ryan blanche in the final segment today that he keeps doing this thing, but , uh , he didn't have a chain, a baseball bat, a machete, a sword, an ax , a chainsaw . He didn't have a bazooka. He didn't have a laser sword or a Jedi Knight saber. He didn't have any of that stuff, right? No, he didn't. And so what he's trying to do is create this narrative. That Rosenbaum is just this innocent guy who is like walking his dog, actually. You know, he , um, he was just on the way over to the , uh , good Samaritan, local , uh , shelter, where he was going to help grandma walk across the street and raise her puppies in the backyard. Right? Like that's what they're trying to make this guy out to be. Didn't have a weapon, didn't have an accident, have a machete. Didn't have any of those things. Doesn't what does that have to do with anything? You can still be dangerous. You can still attack assault somebody and be a lethal threat to somebody without any of those things. But Thomas binger obviously does not grasp that. Let's take a quick look at some of the questions and comments. We're going to pause here, jump in. We're going to take some of the super chats I saw came in [inaudible] Ohio Patriot. We've got Tom Richards here also with the one that we'll make sure we get to . Let's take a look at some questions over first, though, from watching the watchers.locals.com our wonderful community over there. Let's see what we've got in the house. Uh, we've got, oh, this was a very good comment that came in yesterday. I wanted to pause on this one. Larry light says , uh, uh , Rob yesterday after the audio of the video that featured a person identifying Kyle and the crew was militia. The prosecutor answered the judge mindset. The judge then dismissed the jury, had a private conversation with the attorneys. There is a hearsay exception called the mindset of the accused. The speaker here was not the accused. Even the lawyer can make mistakes. And then he cites a case called us versus Leonard Allen from the seventh circuit in 2013, which is a great, great case. And a very astute observation there. Larry, and you know, your rules of evidence, you know, your hearsay rules, because I caught that too yesterday during the clip, when they were having a conversation, remember being her , tried to get all those 21 videos in, or however many exhibits, there were try to get them all in. And in some of those videos, the person who was actually recording the video was saying things like Kyle Rittenhouse is part of a militia. Those are militia members over there. Well, that's just like your opinion, man. That's not a fact in evidence that that is an allegation that is not substantiated. And if that person were in court, if they were there, if we were not listening to them, just playing a video, we would get to cross-examine them. We would get to confront them. We would get to question them about that opinion and say , uh, what do you say, militia? Why would you say they're militia? Do they have patches? Do you know what militia looked like? Do you have any training to formally identify militia members? What the hell? What was that opinion based off of? And so you get to cross examine them. You can't do that if it's just video. So Mark Richards wanted all of those videos to essentially have the audio muted and they didn't settle any of this stuff pretrial . And so it all got hashed out yesterday in court, in front of the jury. And Thomas binger said, oh yes, but judge , uh , judge said, that's hearsay. And , and then he said, well, it's an exception to hearsay. And he said , uh , the exception is it's going to the defendant's mindset and you, but that's not the person who was talking dumb, dumb. That was the, that was the person recording the video. And we don't care about his mindset cause he's not involved. He's a witness there. And so he was conflating a bunch of different rules and the judge had a bunch of different rules that were being conflated. And I don't , I'm not, I'm not sure that they even knew what they were talking about, which is the problem with hearsay. You've got the declarant, you've got actually Rittenhouse . Who's the person like about whom they're talking. And so it can get very convoluted. Larry light pointed that out. Very astutely. Thanks for sharing it. Uh , Thomas binger here , uh, with a hard R, which is how I say it. I mean, it's there, the R's there, Rob , please stop showing me ruining my case. Even the gorilla glue can't make that stick few more. We've got a barn says, so the prosecution is doing a better job than defense than a defending Kyle than the defenses. I that's. Yeah, I think that's pretty fair. Actually. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. We're going to talk about it. De Del SBE says, just wanted to say that I enjoy your analysis on this case. I've got a great day. Your conference. Well, thank you. De Del speed . I appreciate that. We did actually , uh , my goodness, we had a guy named Casey Fleming who is part of the, never heard about him . Uh, he , he spoke today for about two hours, chairman and CEO of black ops . This guy, he spoke today for two hours, Casey Fleming CEO, black ops partners corporation. He talked to a group of , uh , entrepreneurs of this group. I am the tiniest little minnow. I'm the dumbest least accomplished person in this group. This guy talked to about a hundred people and they were all listening to him, warn about China and about the idea that we are at a level 10 actual war with China right now, it's not a shooting war, but it is a, it is an intelligence diplomatic , uh , uh, economic, political infiltration war. And he was communicating this to some people who are pretty, pretty significant in, in society. And it was very interesting to see their response to it. Everybody said, yeah, we know. Yeah. I mean, we we're , we're , we're aware of this. We're seeing it in our business , uh, software developers came on and they said specifically, yeah, no, we had all of our stuff stolen by China. We know people with, you know , 50,000 employees and stuff are , are , you know , in this group, wild, wild stuff. And , uh , that was different fair . Normally we talk about, you know, breathing and mindset. Very interesting. We have a captain. Jim says, Rob, since you threw us off people on the east coast, a curve ball, I meandered over to ricotta yesterday show is him Barnes , good logic, all talking Rittenhouse. How were you not a part of this from captain Jim? I don't know. I don't know. Look a lot. People don't typically invite me to things typically because I don't go. And then they don't, they stop inviting me, which is okay. It works out for both of us, but I have actually sent a DM over to ricotta. So we'll try to see if , uh, if we can connect my days are just super full. And so if you know , I've got a commitment to the show, I'm trying to get some stuff scheduled on the weekend. And I'm hoping that I can talk with all those people. Uh, because I think that there's a different opinion. That's coalescing, that's different from mine. And I'm very curious to see how that is unfolding. Little Mandy says I've watched the entire trial. It seems like the defense can rest at the end. The prosecutor is making the self-defense case way better than anyone could. No reasonable jury will convict after all the testimony so far. I think I agree with you, which is why I'm not even upset about what's what's happening. You know, it's like, okay, well it's a strategy. Just Kyle says, Rob would love to see you hop in. If you have time on Makeda's live stream , he invited all attorneys. That would be amazing. Well, I might be able to pop in right, for , for like an hour or two, but there's no way I can do, you know, a solid didn't he and didn't he do like eight hours today. That guy has some stamina. Nick whew . Old cat lady says, do you think the DA's office is only holding this trial for political reasons, knowing all the time they'd lose. It seems like most of their presentation supports Kyle's case better a trial than more riots. If they didn't. I remember the police report pretty much supported Kyle too . This is from old cat lady. I don't think so. I mean, no, I don't think that there is any conspiracy here on behalf of the DA's office folks. This is just how DA's offices are. This is how it is like this isn't an , an aberration, okay? This happens regularly in cases all across this country, every stinking day, this is the real world. Welcome to it. There's no conspiracy here. This is how prosecutors are. This is how they act. You can take a case like Kyle, that unfortunately doesn't have the benefit of national media attention and thousands of eyeballs that care about it, where it's clear as day, your client didn't do anything wrong. And you try to talk , you , you try to go in there and have a conversation with Thomas binger about that and your reasonable conversation. Now there's no conspiracy. They think he's a murderer. They think he's a, he was a 17 year old punk, white supremacist, you know, oath, keepers, Neo, Nazi, whatever, who was on the streets of Kenosha out there, you know , racist against BLM or whatever. I mean, I'm sure they think this truly through and through in their bones. And if, and if, if, if this doesn't go the way that they want it to, they're going to think that, you know, a murderer has gotten set free. And it's a weird thing to watch to go into a prosecutor and show them facts. And they just go , uh , like I like there , there was one time when I had to show a prosecutor, a video on my surface laptop. Like you're sitting there. I know you're not gonna look at this. You ha you can't, you, you, you can't go anywhere. Watch this play , watch, play, watch it, watch it. And he goes, oh, all right , fine. You're right. All right , fine. And then dismisses the charges. You know, it's like, whoa . And that's not to say that all prosecutors are bad. Okay. But they're institutional bureaucracies. They're massive bureaucracies that are meant to just process people through the system. I don't even have a lot of problems with most prosecutors. Okay. I just have a problem with the systems that they're a part of where they just turn into robotic automatons, where every single file that comes across their desk turns into a Manila envelope with the name of case number and a list of charges. It's insane. That's a human, that's a person. Can you look at the evidence please? And look at the facts and consider what this might do to this person's life, but they don't have time. Cause there's another 80 cases. And so they just get bogged down in the system, right? Just like in any job that you've ever been a part of that you've sort of , uh , had disdained for. Cause you've been there for 10 years, right? It starts to add up like that and you can see it act like, you know , crud that gets around the gears of a person's soul. And it's a kind of sad, a lot of empathy for, for people stuck in that. Hopefully they get out. The Antica says Q the Monty Python big about the joke that makes people laugh to death. Although I could see the judge wanting to keep the air of impartiality. The reality is that the reason he was dismissed is because someone said it was related. If I were the judge before saying anything else, I'd ask how it's related and let whoever come up with some confusing, convoluted mess of a story. I look, I think that the chain of connection there is that the protests were about Jacob Blake. And that was the reason why , uh , anybody was there in the first place because Jacob Blake got shot. So, you know, not, you know, not, not, not, not directly connected to the actual shooting, but close, close three girls , he says is someone, if someone is kicked off, does an alternate command, if an alternate comes in, do they get to hear the testimony in real time? Are they screwed it , listening to the previous testimony until they read the transcript, read the transcripts later. So they actually are working , uh , down. So it's, they have 20, they started with 20 expecting that eight of them are going to get booted probably , uh , at the end of the trial when , uh, it's just time for deliberation or if something like this happens, then they can just start booting them. Now. So now they've got seven left before they're in trouble. So as long as they keep the other seven, they're going to get down to 12. And the, all of them up until this point have heard all the testimony. So that's how it works. A little bit of a reverse order there. We've got a hand of nod , says I've observed much of the trial days watching ricotta that degenerate is an enduring beast . That's what I, that's what I was thinking, right? I mean, he's been doing like eight hour days, nuts commentary made it bearable. I really wish the defense team was more ambitious, did not reject help. Two thirds , uh , two , two out of the three days favor of the defense, largely a function of the facts I perceived . The da is very competent. Comes across as preferring convictions to justice. The opening statements could have set up a larger narrative about the marriage of merit to the defense individual, Liberty and agency. This theme could be used to cuddle the government and arrest the attention to the jurors is painfully obvious. Jury trials are only partially about the law, much more about the human elements must win hearts and minds. Very true. I guffawed aloud at McGuinness his testimony. We're going to get into it heavily today. Did you see the da is moving to conflate self-defense with the wisdom or lack thereof for Rittenhouse being there at all? Yep . I did see that. Do you have the bandwidth to check-out allegations from Jack [inaudible] against Kenosha leadership? It's going to be a long two week Semper vigilantes , uh , from the hand of nod. Very nice comment there. And I think some various Stute observations , uh, to be, to be fair about all this. Uh , I do think that a lot of this has felt from a defense perspective, very sort of spit balled , you know, kind of assembled in a way that was a very loose, right? It's not, not my style. It's sort of feels like they're, they're responding to things just off the cuff and addressing stuff as it comes in to some degree. And I think that's what you're talking about when you're talking about these opening statements. Like they kind of just sound like they're , they're all kind of cobbled together. Doesn't seem like there's one gigantic overarching theme with a lot of this other than self-defense we ha and I'm paying attention to this. Right? One of the things that I noticed in the opening statement was they talked a lot about property and then we kind of missed a lot about the property stuff again. And then we got back to some of the property today from the cross-examination during the Ryan bulge segment. So , uh, so yes, sort of weaving some of this stuff in and out. I think certainly, you know, it could be a lot more polished. You could have a lot more, you know , clear cut theme here, but it's a stylistic thing at least on their behalf. Let's see. Yeah. And I'm curious to see what ricotta and these other guys say. I'm happy to take a look at what posole BIC is talking about, about Kenosha leadership. But I haven't seen that come across. I've been pretty much tunnel vision on the trial. Uh, not really looking at much of the other news. Let's see what else we've got realtor. Patty says, tell YouTube to like and share. Well, fortunately, I don't have to do that. Realtor. Patty just told YouTube to like and share. We've got, Jeremy says it, right? It's painful to listen to the prosecution's lies. It takes a different kind of person to live in an alternate reality. Why did the defense never get the existence before it was allowed into trial? I'm not sure what type of evidence you're talking about. They probably did. They probably did. We just didn't know that they got it. Here's the reason this is called discovery, right? If the defense doesn't get something that's in the prosecution's file and the prosecution tries to use it at a trial, the defense is going to object to that and say, you can't use that. We never got it unless they say, well, we never got it, but we don't care. Use it anyways, which also could have happened. Former Leo says, how could the Leo state that the suspect was unarmed without looking at the contents of the bag? How could Kyle know that he was unarmed without inspecting the bag? Two good questions, which we're going to get to when we get to more of McGuinness testimony, software nugget says, what did the prosecutor want Rittenhouse to do? Sit there and take a beating like many innocent civilians took in cities like Portland and Seattle at the hands of Antifa. It's a good question. Soft . Maybe, I guess maybe that's what he wanted him to do. I guess maybe you can only shoot somebody if they have a machete. According to the Thomas binger, Dr. McCoy says, Jim , I'm a doctor, not a mechanic. It's from Dr. McCoy. Dr. McCoy's here. Couple more. Little Mandy says, ricotta mentioned you , uh, today on live stream about wanting you to go on and offering your opinion. Very cool. Love Nick. I actually really enjoy his show. Three girls. He says being her sounds like a total idiot. So what if Rosenbaum had a knife after Rosenbaum was shot? Someone could have picked up a knife just because the cop didn't see. It doesn't mean it wasn't there. And Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Kyle while gunshots are ringing in the air . Also Rosenbaum had erratic behavior according to the cop and he was looking to ambush. Kyle, I swear. Binger needs to go back to law school. He's a nightmare. As a prosecutor, there are so many holes in this case, it's getting deeper. Every witness he puts on the stand. They're not having a good day. They're not having a good time in this trial. No doubt. Uh , de Del SBE says, it seems like they pulled charges for this case out of their AEs and then got to the evidence. And we're like, well, F we got no evidence. Now, how can we manipulate the evidence and the witnesses to support these garbage charges that we filed? I think you're onto something there. DDL speed. I really think you're onto something there. I think they kind of bit off, more than they can chew. Uh , judge Schrader says, binger is really annoying. Me keeps blabbing about nothing. Every time he asks a question, he digs a bigger hole from himself tomorrow though, subway day, which is good. Cause they got screwed on the chips today. Don't you hate when that happens? Former Elio says DAS , it appears they have forgotten what their job is from former Leo VNT . Caz says we live in an age where, where anything could be a conclusion. You could, you could a round peg in a square hole and someone will say there was a triangle. Nothing surprises me anymore. The outcome of this trial is a crapshoot. If you ask me, I don't think so. I think it's going to be a not guilty. Uh , thunder seven says the joke. Doesn't prove that joker is racist. In fact, the opposite by implying the cops are racist, but I think it's good to judge dismiss them because if Kyle is acquitted, we don't want the violent mobs blaming the racist juror and burning down the courthouse. Yeah, you like that . Like that same thing that happened in the Derek Shovan case when Brandon Mitchell remember that juror who was on the , uh, George Floyd podcast circuit running around to civil rights protest member that Brandon Mitchell. Remember that juror that got the vote. Yeah. A little bit of a different scenario. Isn't it? A software nuggets says, he's the prosecutor going after all these writers who were destroying property and setting buildings on fire or is he just throwing Rittenhouse under the bus? Uh, I don't, I don't, I don't think so. I think he's going after the people who were involved in the homicide bowdlerized me, he says, Rob per Andrew, Branca over at legal insurrection, apparently investigators had a warrant for gross Cruz's phones, but didn't execute it. Yeah. We talked about that yesterday about the rise . May I had the clips of that. So he was the only person of interest that didn't get his phone searched. I'm assuming the prosecutor thought it would hurt their case or they didn't get it. But couldn't the defense request them to get the phone love to show. Well, they can't really because gauge grows Kreutz is allegedly a victim. He's a victim here because he got shot. He's not an assailant. And when you're the victim of a crime, what happens while you get your victims ? Bill of rights, you've got all these victims rights that exists . And one of those rights, privacy. Yeah. So you can't go and get access to certain things. So what they did, I think in Kenosha, in it's called Marsy's law , uh , it's called different things in different states, but most states have something like this. If you're the victim, because you've already been victimized, then you can't be doubly victimized by some scumbag defense attorney poking around your stuff. I mean, you don't want Mark Richards going into gauge gross Cruz's phone. Do you? He's the victim of Kyle Rittenhouse is shooting, allowing some scummy defense attorney, full access to all your private data. Well , that's just too much for us. And so what the , the government did here, even though they've never done this before, according to the detective, Martin Howard never done it before, but this time we're not going to execute that search warrant. They wanted it so badly that they went and actually got a judge to sign off on it. Detective Howard says, yeah , no, we want it badly. Like we really want to see what's in it. Judge says, well, what's your basis for this detective? And he says, here's all my probable cause. And all the probable cause convinces the judge. That sounds pretty good. Here's a search warrant. Go and get it. They take it back to Mr. Baker's office. Mr. Binger says, oh, who's this for? Oh yeah. We're executing warrants all over the place. A lot of racist . neo-Nazis out here in these parts. What do you need? Detective Howard says, well, I need a gauge gross Kreutz phone. It's right here. Judge said I could have it. Tom is binger says what? Gage gross. Groots he's a victim. We can't let you do that. And anybody got signed off on right here. I can go get it right now. I , you sitting right in. They're not going to let you do it. Very curious there , Thomas banger , you little slippery old Pete there. So , uh , w that's exactly right. Valorize me . We talked a lot about it. And Andrew Branca is exactly right. Mr. Spock says, don't let the captain lurk out on the judge. We got star Trek in here today. All right . Let's take a look at our super chats. Before we jump into the next segment. A lot of those came in and we'll start off with a good one. I saw this one at the very start of this puppy we had here. M K man says we are in historical times, Mr. Griller , big kudos to you and the others on this platform for the courage. I know we need to push back. What are your top three suggestions? Okay. So in K man . Great question. Thanks for that. So, first of all, you know, look, thank you for that compliment. I , I , I appreciate that. I, you know, I think that a lot of people are speaking out these times and everybody who is even involved in the conversation is doing good things. So three things. When I talk about, about things people can do, I sort of boil it down into three broad categories. See if this is helpful, number one, sovereignty gotta be focused on things that help you achieve individual sovereignty. A book I recommend is often the sovereign individual written in, I think 1999 V they got some things wrong, no question about it. They put, they were prognosticating what the future looked like and about how technology is going to change the dynamics of violence and how the world's going to change sovereignty. I think, you know, independence financially independence , uh , in terms of, you know , your resources, independence for your family stuff, where you're not reliant on other other people to , to, to a massive degree where it could be catastrophic, if that reliance fails. So sovereignty in many different ways, you know, food, property resources, I'm a big fan of crypto. And having that as a different store of value that you can take off, you know , outside of the systems , big fan of that. I also talk about community building communities highly important, different from your work, right? That's a corporate community, different from your, you know , sports team communities, like what we're trying to do [email protected] People who think alike, people who can get together regularly, people who can start to network and start to build communities. I think it's super important, especially as the world continues to sort of bifurcate into, you know, the VAX versus the unboxed and so on community. And lastly, I think faith, I think you've got to continue to stand for what you believe in. I talk about there being consequences. If you don't speak, there are certainly consequences. If you stand up and speak, there are a lot of consequences for if you do not speak. So having faith that you're , you're fighting on the right side of history, fighting for freedom, fighting for openness, transparency, accountability, ultimately fighting for justice, which is a big reason why we do this show. And if you keep those three things, sovereignty, community, keep your faith, keep praying to your higher power. I think you're going to be all right. Even if the rest of the world feels like it's crumbling around you. Very good question there. Uh , thank you for that. Tom Richards also says, is it true that Mark Richards is a liberal Democrat? I don't know. So he says any possibility that he's purposefully throwing the case? I don't think so, but it's a rumor going around. I don't think so either there , uh, I don't think, I don't think so. Nothing that I'm seeing that leads me to come to that conclusion. Right? All of this feels a little bit unorthodox, but we'll explain that when we start jumping into the text testimony there, Tom, keep in mind, none of these witnesses, none of this evidence has been bad at, towards Kyle Rittenhouse. Have you heard one shred of evidence that was bad other than the idea that maybe, maybe he got the gun sort of in a way that maybe he shouldn't have, but that's all in my opinion, outside of the scope of what we're talking about here, we're talking. I mean, really what the jury is talking about are the dead bodies, was this self-defense yes or no. Any of the evidence that came in, did any of that support? The idea that Rittenhouse is a raging maniacal, Luna tech, you know, racing around Kenosha. No, none of it has. So what is Mark Richards doing that is going to incriminate Kyle or , or not doing to put up a defense. We're going to get into that. We've got a lot more to get to today. We've got AAF , Ohio Patriot says, I believe it's actually Kaminsky . That says you won't do SMF for he's the one who fired the first shot. Oh, okay. Yeah. Maybe that's true. Maybe I missed that for some reason. I thought they were talking about Rosenbaum . I don't know why Richard's would be asking about Kaminski . I thought it was Rosenbalm communicating to either [inaudible] or to Rittenhouse . I don't know though . Good question. It . It's a good question. I'm not sure. I might've mixed those up. Joseph Leonard says more than twice. As many people are killed every year with hands and feet, then all rifles combined hands and feet are totally capable of causing death and grievous bodily injury. What a dumb argument. It is a dumb argument. That's from Joshua Leonard. Yeah. It is a dumb argument. And we're not done with it. We're going to hear a lot more about that because that's all the Thomas binger has. Apparently he kind of comes out and says, yeah, but, but written ha I guess, I guess if he would've had an AR 15, it would have been a fair fight. And only then it's like the duals that you get out there, you know , in the ancient Coliseum , Roman battles. Right? Pick your sword. What? Swords . All right . Spear. All right, go at it. You got , you both got your choice. Then Thomas being here might be okay with that arrangement. Joel Lowery says, great coverage. Wish you were defending. Kyle stay prosecutor seems to be doing enough to defend him. What a hack it's there . They're having a difficult time at basically every one of these witnesses sort of feels like they're a defense witness. Uh, Dave super chatted. Uh, some support. No question. Thanks, Dave. Curtis Bartel says thanks for being real RNR. Thanks you . Thank you, Curtis, for being here. Appreciate that boys . Mommy tube boys . Mommy tube. Okay. Says the AIG had a hand in this case though, right? The ag was the one who pressed for higher charges. Right? I mix ricotta and no commentary. So he's kind of bouncing around between some commentary or not. Yeah. What was that? The Kenosha. AIG . What was his name? Kenosha. It was a , I remember his name. Cause we talked about him a lot. Cause we talked about him in the, in the Jacob Blake case. No, that was the law . Oh Mike Michael gravely. Yeah. He was the other one gravely over here from Kenosha, Michael D gravely. He was the da. Yeah. And so he's got some decision, you know, he's the da. So yeah, he's going to have some say in how that all unfolds from boy's mommy to , you know , look, these things are highly political, but remember that this was political in a political year. This was in 2020 when it was like all hands on deck to make sure that the white, the orange, you know, whatever they called him was not reelected. They were bending over backwards to turn everything into this gigantic racist catastrophe, every which way you turned . And this did not escape. That treatment turned into this big racist thing. Kyle Rittenhouse shot a bunch of, you know, white people. Okay. So , uh , we know that all of this can be political, but a lot of that presumably has evaporated because there's a little bit of distance. Now between the event, we've got another one from sliding and says, happy Thursday, Robert, right back at ya. How did the defense do today versus yesterday? How bad was the prosecution's witnesses? Pretty bad. We're going to get into it . We got like probably two more hours of it. Uh , uh, my take away two witnesses or setting up two witnesses or setting up a defense. They are setting up a great defense. Yeah . Most of their testimony was beneficial to Rittenhouse. Joe Sullivan says, Robert ricotta we'll work around your schedule. Even if it's momentary, as for the case, prosecution knows they are going to lose this battle. So they're using buzzwords and political narratives to feed the media. It seems. Yeah. I mean, I guess, I guess that's a strategy, Joe . You know, if you have no luck , they say something like if you have, if you have a good facts in a case pound the good facts, right. In the case, if you don't have good facts in a case pound the table, that's all you do. Just start pounding the table. [inaudible] racist and monster and murderer and order . So that's what you're seeing. So the prosecutor, he didn't have a gun. Did he didn't have a machete? Did he didn't have a baseball bat? Did he didn't have a two by four with nails stuck in the back? Did he? No, he did not binger. He didn't have a nuclear arsenal. What do you, what's your point? Nonsense from sliding yet. Joe Sullivan. Okay. We'll get together with ricotta. No doubt about that. We'll connect with him. Uh, and, and I, and I, I , I got plenty of time on Sunday. If we want to do that, trooper says, can't wait for your cameo tomorrow. But even if you don't drop in on Nick tomorrow, you're still taller than attorney Tom. You know, I heard Nick ricotta over there. Uh, uh, I think I was listening to his show a couple of days ago and he was talking about attorney Tom. And I don't know who attorney Tom is, but he was prefacing this story. Maybe you heard this. He was telling this story about some attorney on YouTube who runs a stream and laughs at all his own jokes, you know, he's sort of on the stream. He just thinks he's hilarious where Kate is saying this. And all he does is he goes on the stream and he just, he just makes jokes. And he just laughs at his jokes all the time. And he's like, you know, it's kind of a YouTube thing. Like you can be creative and everybody gets to do what they want to do, but somebody's got to tell him, so he's got to tell this guy and I'm listening to this. And I'm like, I hope it's this channel. I hope it's me. Please say, please say somebody tell Rob, you know, to, to get it together over there. And I was laughing my off. I was going to send in a super chat, but I think I was in the car or something. I couldn't stop or whatever. Uh , but it was funny. It turns out it wasn't me. It was attorney Tom. Now I have to go figure out who attorney Tom is. Cause he sounds hilarious if he is what he says, ricotta is , uh , John Fraser says the da, the da did what to go into that phone because there is stuff on the phone that can sink their case big time. Yeah, of course he didn't want to, it would have been, it would have been very , uh, very inconvenient if there was something pretty damning in there. So he just played it safe and didn't, didn't give him any access to it. All right. Those were great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for the support over there and for all of those amazing super chats from my friends over on YouTube as well. Thank you for all your support. All right. And so we're going to jump in to our next segment here. And a big, a big part of the testimony was , uh, surrounding this individual, Richard McGuinness , a big witness today in a day four of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we're going to spend some time listening to his testimony, recall that government prosecutor, Thomas binger called him. This is a state's witness. The government chose to call this person and to file charges with him as a victim, as an alleged victim in this case. And you can see, we revisit the charges list and you can see we're talking about count two reckless endangerment, charge this over here is Richard McGuiness . He's a reporter. So sort of a, kind of a pseudo journalist. I didn't really want to be called that somebody who kind of just goes around these scenes and records footage. And so the government called him today. He was an alleged victim. He was also a witness. He was there. This was the guy that was running sort of alongside Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse. And when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbalm McGinnis was thinking that he was filming the entire altercation, thought he had his phone on. It turns out he didn't, but as the bullets were sort of being shot into Rosenbalm, presumably bullets went by, could have hit Richard McGuinness prosecution takes a look at this and says, reckless endangerment. You were right there. Kyle, you could have shot him when you were illegally murdering Rosenbalm. You could have also accidentally been overly reckless and hit McGuinness, therefore reckless endangerment. He becomes a victim. Now, when we've talked about this case a year ago, we went through the probable cause statement that included all of the testimony from Richard McGinnis and all of it that we read looked like it was pretty persuasive to hint that McInnes his testimony was going to be Rittenhouse was really running away from this whole thing. That Rosenbaum was the ultimate provocateur and that Rittenhouse was ultimately acting out of self-defense. We read that sounded pretty reasonable and plausible. And so remember that when you are a defense attorney, one of the things that you do in a case like this, especially is you interview all of the witnesses in the case. Now here, we don't know, since Richard McGuinness was a victim, right? Purportedly a victim. We don't know whether the defense ultimately got an interview with him, but we do know that he interviewed with several other people. We know that he interviewed with Tucker Carlson. We're going to see some of that here in this segment. We know that he interviewed , uh, other people FBI. And so here , we've got a record of what Richard McGuinness has said. And one of the reasons those pretrial interviews are so important is so that if a witness comes into court on any particular day, and they say something different than what they said in a prerecorded interview that you get to then impeach them with their prior inconsistent statement. Okay. So let's flush this out. What if on August 28th, three days after the shooting took place, McGinnis goes out and says something like Rosenbalm was acting like a total , uh, uh, innocent person. He was just there as an innocent bystander and Rittenhouse executed and murdered him. Hmm . And you said, okay, well, that's a pretty clear statement. And then you fast forward, because trials take a lot of time trials take years. Uh, you know, sometimes this took what 13 months or so before really gotten gear. And sometimes people's stories change. So what if Rosenbaum comes back out? I'm sorry. Uh , McGinnis comes back out now and says, oh, Rosenbalm actually was the aggressor. Well, what do you do in a situation like that? You said , well, that's weird. Your testimony changed their McGuinness because a year ago you said that that Rosenbaum was just an innocent person walking a puppy dog. Now you said, he's the aggressor. Oh, while your testimony changed. And so what do you do? You go back, you get their, their, their prior recorded statement, the transcript, and you bring it right into court and you say, oh, well, that's not what you said a year ago. You said this didn't you. Yes. It's impeaching a witness with their prior inconsistent statement. And so the reason why witnesses don't change all that much is because of that threat, because that happens. So some people were saying, whoa, Richard McGuinness better not change his story. What if he, you know, what if he cuts out over there? What if he comes in here and suddenly throws Rittenhouse under the bus? Because we know that in his prior statement, in the probable cause documents, that he was pretty dang persuasive, that Rittenhouse had didn't do anything wrong from our gathering. I couldn't even believe they were charging this case based on his statements. And we talked about it. I was sort of aghast that this even got as far as it did. So you can't really expect him to come into court today and blow everybody's socks off and say something totally outside the ordinary. Now we take a look at our other victim. We're going to get to later Ryan blanche . And he is not a victim in a case. So he is ripe for an interview. So presumably the defense absolutely interviewed him. So they knew what he was going to say to the defense, knew exactly what Richard McGuinness was going to say, because he said it multiple times. And so when you think about it, in that context, you can sort of understand why it's not always necessary to jump up and shout objection at every single question that comes in. If you know what they're going to say and what they say helps your case, you want to let their testimony come in unmolested without you springing up every two seconds, objecting to everything. If it's a helpful, useful witness, you're not going to treat them as a hostile witness and do a standard cross examination because they're your witness, essentially, if they're helpful. Okay. So with that, back-end we now know we're talking about count two reckless endangerment, Richard McGuinness . Remember not a lot of people were actually there. Some people were there, Huber was there, but he's dead. Rosenbaum was really there. He's also dead. So not that many were surrounding the situation McGinnis certainly was. And so we're going to talk about two different dates in McInnes , his testimony Monday and Tuesday, let's take a quick look at a calendar, get our bearings straight on Monday. There was a ton of the civil unrest all throughout Kenosha. We're going to hear about that day. First McGuinness gives us testimony about being there on August 24th, 2020 we're then going to see in on Tuesday, the following day, that's when the actual shooting took place. So we're talking about two different days here. Keep this in mind. The reason why Kyle was there on the 25th is because they saw all of the wreckage that happened on the 24th. And we're going to hear about both of those days because McGinnis was there on both of them and listen to what this prosecutor even says. This is prosecutor Thomas binger asking about the 24th. What was the situation like? It looks like it was kind of chaotic. What did you have to say about it? Here it is.

Speaker 4:

And when you say you saw people putting out fires with pressure washers, were they putting out fires only at that location on the Southwest corner or where they also trying to put out the fires on the north east corner?

Speaker 6:

It was , um, it was only at the, so it was only at that one and not, I didn't see anybody trying to put out fires on the other one across .

Speaker 4:

Understood. I think the fires were out of control at that point. So I guess I'm just trying to pin it down, so.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Did you hear what the prosecutor just said? Super sloppy. He says, listen. Yeah, yeah, yeah , yeah, yeah. Okay. Just trying to get a clear answer on what map you're talking about. I go , I know there were fires everywhere is what he said. He's describing a situation that sounds like a war zone in front of the jury with his own witness. I know that there were fires everywhere, stop getting into it. I know they're all over the place, but can you tell me what else you saw? And he says, yeah, there were fires everywhere. Here he is.

Speaker 4:

So , um, you told us that you witnessed the fires at those two locations on Monday night. Did you witness any other events on Monday night that were noteworthy?

Speaker 6:

Yes. Um, I mean, there were just, there were fires everywhere , um, and shall be Jorge. And I recorded a number of those , uh, including , uh , multiple businesses that , uh, were also,

Speaker 4:

And you recorded that information and then obviously published stories about it on the daily caller website. Is that fair to say that's correct.

Speaker 6:

Yeah.

Speaker 1:

Fires everywhere, multiple businesses. This is all on Monday, the 24th. So Kyle Rittenhouse and everybody, they, they come out there the next day. They're going to stop that from happening again. And the prosecutor is setting this, this, this, this whole scene. How does that play with the jury? It's a very sympathetic situation. As far as I can . As far as I'm concerned, you have a situation where police are not stopping the protest. You've got a bunch of business owners in Kenosha, which is where all the jurors are from, who are watching their property, be burnt to the ground. Nobody's doing anything about it. Monday. It's a war zone. Binger says there are fires all over the place. We have the government's own witness. Now, Richard McGinnis coming out, fires everywhere, all over the place. That's why everybody showed up on the 25th. And that's going to be like a bad thing to tell the jurors who are watching their city burned down at that time. I'm not going to move

Speaker 4:

To the next night, Tuesday night, August 25th, the night of the shooting. Okay. Now John come back , uh , to that area , uh, to view the events of that night.

Speaker 6:

Um, well, the way that it happened was we went to the courthouse to , to document that the demonstrations that were happening in front of the courthouse, and then , uh , subsequently the police pushed the , uh, protestors, demonstrators, riders , whatever you want to call them , um, away from the courthouse. And , uh, that's actually when everybody ended up in that area.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So he , he, he sort of gives us a little hint about what happened. Remember this aerial footage from yesterday now they didn't bring this up in trial. I'm just sort of refreshing where we're picking up. But yesterday we , we , we talked a lot about this. This was the FBI aerial drone footage. And McInnes we see is this guy over here, right? He's in the, in the purple pink dot. And this was the exhibit that was submitted by Mark Richards and , uh , the written house team. And then we saw that in the white circle, this was Rosenbalm . This was the guy who was wearing the maroon shirt, who was ultimately shot and killed. And then we saw the [inaudible] here in the red and the green. And so this is, that's the person that we're talking about. Now, of course, yesterday, we spent all day talking about the sort of development of this, where they ran this direction. There was a little bit of a , you know, the shooting took place there. And then McGuinness was sort of following them along this entire time and then bails out back this direction after the shooting takes place. And because he was in such close proximity, they're telling us that was a reckless endangerment. So now that we have, you know, sort of a rectal , a refreshment of what was going on here, let's listen to McInnis , walk us through what happened. He was on the phone. He sees, this is going down right in front of him, all in real-time ultra high speed. This is how the conversation went in court today. Yes .

Speaker 4:

You mentioned friendly, friendly , uh, at that time, that moment in that evening, do you recall hearing that?

Speaker 6:

I did not. Um, I recall , um, I was on the phone as well, so I was talking to Shelby and I recall hearing the yelling while I was still on the phone. And I said something along the lines of, oh, expletive, I got to go. And , um, and I hung up on Shelby at which point that's when the running had started. Like I was already , uh, basically running with the , uh, Mr. Rittenhouse and later Mr. Rosenbaum , um , at that, that moment.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So , uh , gotta go right. Kind of urgent situation. And you heard him say at the beginning of that, that , that you heard the word friendly, friendly, friendly, friendly, right? Remember, remember you heard that yesterday from the detective also, apparently the story goes that Rosenbalm the attacker or the assault or the ambush or , or the victim, depending on how you want to label them comes running around the car. Rittenhouse says friendly, friendly, friendly, friendly, says it three times, and then nothing happens. There is no disconnection. The sort of interaction continues to evolve and mature. And the shooting happened shortly thereafter. So we can pick back up. We can now check back in with McInnis . He's going to tell us that there was a lot of yelling, but listen to the language he uses when he's talking about the dance, the interplay between Rittenhouse and Rosenbalm says Rosenbalm is actually the person who is advancing towards Rittenhouse. Here's what he said.

Speaker 4:

So let's continue at that . Where you just left off, please tell us what you would have .

Speaker 6:

It was, it was hard for me to see. Cause like I said, I was like 30 feet back at the time. Um, but I could see a lot of yelling. I could hear a lot of yelling and I could see there was a crowd of people in the street and um, one individual Mr. Rosenbaum advancing towards Mr. Rittenhouse, as well as a couple of other individuals who were moving very quickly , um, in the area. Uh, but it was, it was hard for me to see, cause I was a little bit back and it was, it was dark. Okay. What happened then? Um,

Speaker 1:

Rosenbalm advancing towards written house and it's just getting warmed up, right? So the language is going to get a lot more , uh, sort of aggressive as the witnesses carry on. But again, Rosenbalm pursuing written house . This is, this is, this is 100% against the testimony that the prosecutor gave us, even in his opening statement. And remember he told us that the FBI, we were going to see drone surveillance footage that was produced by their team that shows that Rittenhouse was the person chasing Rosenbalm yesterday, even in the aerial footage that they played, both sides, the defense and the prosecution got copies of the drone footage. The defense used the circles that we just looked at, the blue, the red, the green, the white, the prosecution used the circle in the square yesterday. We talked about the square recording to the prosecutor was chasing the circle. Oh. And then the circle turned around and then chased the square. Oh. And the prosecution's conversation was written . House was chasing Rosenbalm their own witness. Richard McInnis said, no Rosenbalm was approaching Rittenhouse, says it again. In fact, Rittenhouse actually tried to juke his way to get out of the whole ordeal. It says it was a pivot and a run here he is.

Speaker 6:

Mr. Rosen BOM , advanced towards Mr. Rittenhouse. Uh, Mr. Rittenhouse gave like , uh , I think he maybe saw him coming and gave like kind of a , I said on the night of , uh , to police, that was like a joke, but it was more like just a , a pivot in a run.

Speaker 1:

Okay. A pivot and a run, trying to disengage coming at him. Didn't shoot him right away. Could have shot him right there. Okay. Whoa, whoa . Rather than saying friendly, friendly, friendly, whoa, boom. You're dead. Nope. Friendly, friendly, friendly pivot, run, turn, you know , turns and runs several feet. Here's what he tells us. 15 feet.

Speaker 4:

How far back from Mr. Rosenbaum, where you as the threat as, as the, the pursuit went through the car source parking lot?

Speaker 6:

Um, well, it's hard to say, cause I kind of caught up to them. Um, I was running a bit faster and so , uh, at the time initially I was probably 30 feet back when the first, when everybody's first started running. But then by the time I arrived in the lot, it was 15 feet.

Speaker 4:

And you continue to be behind Mr. Rosenbaum at the time that the defendant shot and killed him.

Speaker 6:

Correct? Um, I did alter my trajectory a little bit. Um, when I saw Mr. Rittenhouse turned around and saw Mr. Rosenbaum , um , lunging for the front portion of the rifle

Speaker 4:

Lunging .

Speaker 1:

Oh , okay . Did you hear that word? Rosenbalm Rosenbalm Rosenbaum and then lunging lunging for the gun going to get into that. A lot of that here in a quick minute, but I wanted to just show you again, here's the prosecutor doing this same tired, stupid routine. Mr. McGuinness though. Did you see Rosenbalm with an Apache attack helicopter in his back pocket though?

Speaker 4:

What was it about the situation in front of you? You said you were fixated on it. What , what was it about the situation in front of you that, that focused your attention? Well ,

Speaker 6:

There were , um, we were running very quickly, number one. So I was just , just by virtue of the fact that I was running , uh , it was focused on that, but also , um, I knew having seen Mr. Rittenhouse earlier and just using my eyes at that time that he was armed. Um, and also , uh, there was , uh, a bag that was thrown by Mr. Rosenbaum. And so clearly there was like, you know , um, something about to happen. So I was paying attention to that. Okay .

Speaker 4:

Did you ever, there it is see a weapon on Mr. Rosenbaum? I did not never saw gun on Mr. Rosenbaum. I did not. Never saw him have a knife. Nope. Never saw him have a club or a bat or a chain or anything like that. I just saw

Speaker 6:

That the bag that was thrown, that was it. And

Speaker 1:

So no Apache attack helicopter, either prosecutor in the same thing, didn't see anything, just the bag that was thrown at him. And, you know, I saw, I saw Mr. Peter over there on YouTube saying that I'm cherry picking the trial as we're going through this and my friend, this is the government's witness. This is their witness. This is the testimony that he gave. I'm not, I'm not trying to cherry pick anything to defend Kyle it's their witness. I've got, we're going to go through a lot more of the direct exam than we are the cross exam. This is binger asking him questions. This is his witness and the guy's not really helping them all that much. Here's where he picks up. McInnes is talking about the chase, following the chase. Okay . The chase is the language that prosecutor binger even uses talking about. Rosenbalm presumably chasing Rittenhouse prosecutors using this language and Rosenbalm was the one doing the chasing, but we know that there was some language that was being thrown out there. And here is what McGuinness had to say about it. I think there's a content warning here. So if the F-bomb concerns you in the middle of murder, trial coverage, ear Muff time, here it is, as

Speaker 4:

The chase is occurring in the car source parking lot. Did you hear, and again, I want you to go back to that moment. Yes. We've seen other videos. We've heard other videos, so we have hindsight, but in that moment, as you are following the chase behind Mr. Rosenbaum, behind Mr. Rittenhouse, did you hear Mr. Rosenbaum say anything?

Speaker 6:

Um, there was a few , um, and at the, at the time, in that instance, you know, my recollection of it, the night of it, it was really hard for me to decipher, you know, whether that was , uh, who, who yelled at , um, after seeing the footage. It's very clear to me. Yeah .

Speaker 1:

Okay. Very clear. Who yelled it and now a binger goes into this after the fact is like, well, you , uh , yeah, but, but you only know now because you watched the video now and you know, it was Rosenbalm now, but you didn't know it was Rosenbaum then did you? Well, no . I mean, I heard it, but couldn't tell exactly who it was, but of course now I know it and bigger didn't like that answer. And so they spent a lot of time digging into that. Now this is where things started to get very squirrely here. And I want to, I want to go through this with some detail, because what happened is , uh , as I mentioned at the start of this segment that started the program, what often happens in defense attorney with criminal cases is you use somebody's prior interview to impeach them. And typically what you'll do is you'll do this with police officers, right? An officer will write a report and it'll say , uh , so-and-so you know, a punched be in, in the face, see sought and D called 9 1 1. Okay. So you've got your sequence of events. Then six months later, trial happens and in trial, the police officer says, we'll actually see, said that , uh , she called nine 11 and D said that they were the people who witnessed the whole thing and everything got twisted and topsy turvy. And so now you bring back your prior interview to draw out these prior inconsistent statements. Typically you do this with somebody who is not your witness, somebody who is , um , adversarial to you, somebody you've already interviewed and you can say, yeah, Hey. Yeah, yeah. I know you say that now in court, but you didn't say that six months ago, digit . So you would use that when you're cross-examining somebody else, when they're an adversarial hostile witness, but Thomas binger prosecutor of the stars is going to be doing that. In this case, he calls up his own witness and says , um , uh , you described a Rosenbalm falling falling forward, right ? Maybe. So they're going to spend all this time in the world, talking about falling versus lunging was Rosenbalm already like leaning forward collapsing to the ground because he tripped and fell on something. Or was he lunging to go get the gun out of Kyle Rittenhouse? His case if he was falling in Kyle Rittenhouse shot him. Well, in addition to being a racist, Neo Nazi insurrectionist murderer, well , he also was shooting a falling man, right, right. In the chest, right in the back. Right. As he was already falling. So therefore self-defense wouldn't apply because he was not being attacked. It wasn't an assault. It wasn't an ambush. He just tripped. Dang it don't you hate when that happens. And so he tripped and it was a fall. And apparently Richard McGuinness used this language in an interview with Tucker Carlson. So Thomas binger goes and grabs this interview and hauls it into court today to sort of impeach his own witness with prior inconsistent statements to make his own witness look less credible on the stand to say, oh , well you testified here today. X, Y, and Z, but that's not what you said six months ago. So were you lying then? Or are you lying now? Prosecution they're witnesses. It's their case. They called this person. They didn't have to call him. They didn't have to charge Rittenhouse in the first place, but they did. And this is their case. This is how they're handling it. This is what it sounded like today. Is it

Speaker 4:

Fair to say if I'm understanding your testimony correctly, that when the defendant shot, Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Rosenbaum was already falling forward?

Speaker 6:

Uh, his momentum, I wouldn't say falling. I would say his momentum was definitely going forward. It's not clear to me whether he would have , uh, I guess fallen if you know, the shots had been fired, but certainly his momentum was , um, was in the forward direction. And also , uh, his hands were out in front of his feet , uh, such that, you know , uh, his center of gravity was , uh, beyond where his fever,

Speaker 4:

You gave an interview , um, in which you characterize this incident as the defendant shooting, Mr. Rosenbaum , while Mr. Rosenbaum was falling. Do you recall saying that in an interview?

Speaker 6:

Um, there were four shots. So , um, I don't recall specifically saying that, but , um, w was that the direct quote? Let's put it

Speaker 4:

Up on screen.

Speaker 1:

There's Kyle. All right. So they go through this. So you heard him , uh, you, you remember when you said that he was falling? I don't. I w I don't think I'd say that. I think that he was like, lunging, not falling. He didn't trip over a shoelace. They're bigger and bigger says, oh, liar, my lying witness that I called. I've got a secret interview of you where you said he was falling. And I swear, I swear, folks. He played the Tucker Carlson interview today in court. He played it. He played the whole thing. Now we're going to play it again , uh , uh , after this in a minute, because he plays it again. He says, oh, you did say falling, cue it back up. But before we get there, he says , um, I think what I said in on Tucker was kind of consistent with what I'm saying here. So I don't even know what the, what, you're , what you're talking about there , binger, here it is

Speaker 4:

The video here , uh, you are telling , uh , Fox news Tucker Carlson that the defendant shot, Mr. Rosenbaum is Mr. Roseman was falling forward.

Speaker 6:

Um, yeah, it's unclear to me because the shots were so quick , uh, uh, whether, you know, the shots are the reason why he , uh, because he lunged and then the shot was fired as he was lunging. So it was like , um, I guess perhaps it was the shots that caused him to then rather than stopping himself , um, just fall flat.

Speaker 4:

That's not what you just said. Let's play this back about all these,

Speaker 1:

Oh, liar. Oh, so here they play it. Here it is. He pulls it up on YouTube, on Fox

Speaker 6:

For the barrel of the rifle. And he was that close to him and written out. It's actually took the barrel of the rifle and just dodged around. And at that point, as Rosenbalm was falling forward, he fired quickly four shots into Rosenbaum .

Speaker 4:

Your interview three days after this incident says that Mr. Rosenbaum was already falling forward. When the defendant used the gun, discharged the shots.

Speaker 6:

And I don't see why that's inconsistent with what I'm saying right now. He was, he was lunging falling. Um, I would use those as synonymous terms in this situation, because basically, you know, he threw his momentum towards the weapon. And when the weapon wasn't there, his momentum was continuing. And that's the point at which he fired. So if you use the word falling or lunging, it was his momentum was going forward. And that's the point at which she fired the shot .

Speaker 1:

Okay. So this gets, this gets squirrely . And this is squirly folks. Like this is not a common thing that happens. Okay. Think about what happened in the Derek Shovan case. I know many of you were with us on this channel. When we talked about this, this would be like the government prosecutors in that case, calling that respiratory doctor who came in and came out with all the diagrams and all the statements and all that, I was there. I , I , here's what I studied. And they say, yeah, but isn't it true that you're an idiot because you also wrote a book that says the opposite of what you're saying here today. You would never do that. It's your witness. It's like your best friend up there. You want to coach them through this. You want to help them along. You want to make them look as credible as can be. They're the star of your show. You need them to make the case. You need them to prove the elements of the offense. And what he's doing here is bringing out practically what he's basically doing here is calling this guy a liar. Oh, you S you sat on Tucker. He fell, but now you're lying. And now you're saying that he was lunging, huh? Liar. Okay. If he's such a liar, then why did you call him as a witness in the first place? Dummy. If all of his testimony is tainted due to his lack of credit credibility, didn't why is he your witness? Why would you call him in the first place? Nuts. So you can see why Mark Richards is sitting there. Just go and yell, let him go. Do whatever. Say whatever you want to say, ask him anything. I don't care, whatever you want, because he knows what McGinnis is going to say. And he knows his prosecutor is, is grasping for let it go, right? If your enemy is destroying themselves, step out of the way. Don't let don't get in the way you just let it go. Keep going, have a free for all. That's basically what this is looking like. So they're, they're , they're fighting over this word, listen to this. Watch how dumb this is. They are fighting over this word, falling versus lunging or assaulting or whatever. And so now McGinnis is going to get very irritated about this because they're spending a lot of time on this word. That for all intents and purposes, as far as McGuinness is concerned, doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. So then prosecutor is , is not letting him get away with this. So he's like squirrel, you know , driving this point home. And then again, it starts to get snappy this, all right , enough, already call it whatever you want. Then they finally take a break. Now listen to what this prosecutor says, just call it, fall it . However you want to call it, whatever you want. He says, so we just spend like 10 minutes in court fighting over, falling versus lunging. Then the prosecutor at the end of this clip says, however you want to phrase it, just call it whatever you want. Did that happen here? It is

Speaker 4:

Your statement in this interview. And what you're telling us here today in person is that Mr. Rosenbaum was already falling forward. When the defendant shot him.

Speaker 6:

Yes . His momentum was going forward. I don't know this term falling. I wouldn't use that. So I'm not going to say that. Cause that's not what I

Speaker 4:

Won't . You actually have said that I'm

Speaker 6:

Using . You're not going to say that right now because I'm clarifying. You're correct. It was a live interview.

Speaker 2:

You can ask a question, but don't comment on the witness ,

Speaker 4:

Um, at any rate, whether it's the momentum falling, however you want to put it in . Mr. Rosenbaum was in that motion. Yes. Yes. Before the defendant shot.

Speaker 6:

Yes.

Speaker 4:

Okay. We can take a break now, your honor. Yes. Stupid.

Speaker 2:

Um, let's take a break folks. Uh, please don't talk about the case during the

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Yeah. That's what he was saying for 20 minutes. And then he played the interview and he's impeaching his own way. And finally, the prosecutor finally gets the answer that he wanted, that the momentum was going forward. Yeah, that's what he said. He called it a lunge. He called it falling. You wanted him to say falling again. He wanted to say lunge again. You beat him over the head with it, your own witness, with his own statements from prior interviews. And then after all of that pain, after all of that exercise, that trouble, you finally conclude your line of questioning was saying, well, whatever you want to call it, he was just moving forward, basically. Right? Yes, he was okay. We can take a break now. Ah , folks, it hurts. It's so painful to watch this in real time . It's like, it's like painful. So , uh , there's like two seconds of cross-examination Mark Richards comes out and says , uh , uh, is a good cross examination is talking about menacing because binger is out there talking , uh, you use the phrase menacing. He has a really menacing situation. And of course they want to make it look like Kyle Rittenhouse is this menacing maniac who was out there like a lunatic running around with a assault rifle. And , uh, Mark Richards comes back out. That's not really what you meant by menacing. Is it there Mr. McGinnis ?

Speaker 3:

When you met Kyle and you interviewed him, he was not menacing to you. Was he ,

Speaker 6:

Um, beyond that he had a weapon? No . Okay.

Speaker 3:

So what was menacing was the

Speaker 6:

Weapon? When I, when I said , um , menacing in that context, it was the situation that was menacing, which is a number of armed individuals. And specifically , uh , in that instance, I was most nervous about the individuals on the, because I couldn't see them. Um, so it's, it was just more concerning to me because at least, you know, the folks on the ground, I could see them.

Speaker 3:

I was one of the ones on the ground . Yes . And the interview which Mr. Binger took from and referred to the menacing word, was you being interviewed by Kyle Horton and that interview was 26 minutes long. Correct. And you used the word medicine once?

Speaker 6:

Um, I guess so you went through it, so I'll take your word for it, but I don't recall saying it another time. Okay.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So that's it so pretty easy to see what he's doing there. He's just trying to add some meat around the skeleton. And this is exactly what Thomas binger has been doing. This entire trial. Find something, pulls it out of context. Typically asks a dumb question of his own witnesses, who then provide some pretty damning context for his case, not for written house's case, but the same type of thing happened here pulls out one con one quote from McGinnis , oh , menacing, and then makes that the basis of his entire cross exam . As I said, if you can't pound the facts, pound the table. And so that's exactly what he's doing. And , and, and so what Mark Richards does is he just comes back out. It was like one word out of 26 minutes. And you weren't talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, you're talking about , uh , the war zone that took place on the 24th and 25th in August of Kenosha, Wisconsin, right? Yeah, exactly. Right. Okay. Well, that's it. No further questions. Why? Because Thomas binger basically did the entire direct exam for the defense. It was basically a defense witness as far as I can tell. So they let the whole thing go and didn't even have to ask him any questions. And honestly, as we go through this, you have to ask yourself if the government didn't call Richard McGinnis as a witness, would the defense call Richard McGinnis as a witness? Absolutely. They would. Of course they would. So he was basically a defense witness that the government was doing a direct exam on and poorly at that. Not even any good. So why would a defense attorney spring into action object over all the tests, all this stuff. If you know what he's going to say, and it's all going to be useful and helpful. And if he squirrels away from any of this, if McGinn is , comes in and starts spouting off about Rittenhouse being a monster, while they can just go back to his prior interviews, they can go back to his , uh , somebody said on YouTube that he was on Tim pool , which I didn't even know. So you've got also that recorded interview. You've also got his probable cause statement and all of the interviews that detective Martin Howard gave with him. So it might feel like it's a government witness. Like everybody wants to see blood drawn because being are called him. But this was a defense witness. As far as I can tell everything that came out of his mouth was pretty much in favor of the defense. And , um, this came back on redirect, and this just shows you, this is again, direct exam, cross examination, redirect binger continues to dig the hole even deeper for himself, comes back out and says, so all your opinions about Rosenbalm , those are basically guesswork. You don't even know what you're talking about. Do you, even though I called you to the stand, I'm going to come back out here and basically impugn your credibility. So you don't know anything about any of this stuff. And what do you have to say about that? You didn't know anything about what Rosenbaum was actually doing, do you? Well, he says, well, I , I know enough. Here's how that went down

Speaker 4:

The point. Did you hear Mr. Rosenbaum say anything about the defendant's gun?

Speaker 6:

I did not

Speaker 4:

Know. He never said I want your gun. I'm going to take your gun. Give me your gun. I'm going to steal your gun. Anything along those lines?

Speaker 6:

I didn't hear anything like

Speaker 4:

That. No. And you've already established that after the shooting. Mr. Rosenbaum never says a word, correct?

Speaker 6:

Correct.

Speaker 4:

You don't know as you sit here today, what Mr. Rosenbaum was thinking, do

Speaker 6:

You mean at the time of the shooting? Yes.

Speaker 4:

Or at any point in his life? I mean, you have no idea what Mr. Rosenbaum was ever thinking at any point in his life, you have never been inside his head. You never met him before. You don't know .

Speaker 6:

I've never, even, I've never exchanged words with him. If that's what your question is.

Speaker 4:

So your interpretation of what he was trying to do or what he was intending to do or anything along those lines is complete guesswork. Isn't it content?

Speaker 6:

Well, he said, you. And then he reached for the weapon. Okay .

Speaker 4:

Let's talk.

Speaker 1:

So it's pretty clear he had a gun and he said, F you in front of , uh, everybody. And we all heard that. So I can't tell you exactly what was going on in his state of mind, but also think you can take a wild guess there, binger and binger is asking these questions. I mean, it's like, what are you doing, brother? You know what he's going to say? Why are you asking those questions? It's your witness. And my friends, I listened to the whole thing. There wasn't much good testimony there for the government other than yeah, he was there. Kyle Rittenhouse shot somebody. That's true. All right . Let's take a [email protected]ocals.com . It's funny, I'm seeing sort of a theme in the YouTube comments of people saying that this is biased. I don't know what's biased about it. The witnesses are biased. It's it's the government called McGinnis . It's not my witness. He called them. And those questions, what does bench, you know, facts don't care about? My analysis facts are what the facts are. If the government's witnesses are going to be, you know , factually bad for the government and nothing I can do about that. I'm just playing what happened in trial today. All right. Let's take a look at some questions, watching the watchers.locals.com. And I see some super chats also coming in in the house. Let's see, got a bunch we're going to fly through a couple of these F says, why couldn't they subpoena the cell phone records from the carrier? So they , uh, they, they could, they probably did, but they didn't , uh, they didn't get a full copy of gross. Kreutz his phone, which is really what they wanted a full image of the entire drive. Tos forever says , uh , seven shore seventh tier year old seven. I don't know if that is the difference between your perspective and Robert Barnes is exciting. Yeah. Robert Barnes is a very technical lawyer, right? He wants, you know, body language experts and all of that stuff, which is, you know , one way to do it. If the antique is prime says, if you're looking for more ideas on that tangent, I'd say, look up reco rings and farm shares, have your own libraries, digital libraries keep an isolated drive of your music, all that stuff, probably on the sovereignty comment. Thanks for that. GDI says, oh, command and Congress in the house, how is this justice? Isn't the state of stand your ground state. Isn't Kyle running away proof that he tried to leave. And this defended himself, isn't the lesson I should take from this to run for the Hills. After defending myself, I see no justice. The juror was dismissed should have been able to remain. Did they violate his freedom of speech? No, the judge is going to have a lot of leeway in any type of a trial like this. And so the judge is, you know, he's , he's entitled to make that decision. Marvel is stick me, says it would be awful to sit through a read , stay awake through all of the testimony only to be excluded from participating in the verdict. If there are more than 12 at the time to deliberate, did they just remove jurors with the highest juror number? So I don't know how they do it specifically. Uh, I was sort of, you know , mentioning that they have random procedures in different courtrooms. Uh, typically it can't even be , uh, you know, drawing numbers out of a hat. Like no joke on that. Uh, another one is N Y renal D it seems the prosecutor has opened the door, at least on Rosenbaum's pass . Would it be a good strategy for the defense to bring in the recent past of the victims? Gage gross groups made death threats to people opposing BLM on Facebook. So it depends. And some of this is sort of a equal admissibility conversations that happen . So back during pretrial proceedings, the government here, Thomas binger, they wanted to get in a bunch of evidence about Rittenhouse in particular. I think there was a fight at a lake. There was a fight at some other school someplace. Uh, you know, there was some other incident that they wanted to talk about base basically , uh, prior bad acts to come in to , to prove conformity with the underlying offense. So they wanted to bring that in for Kyle and the defense wanted to bring that in for the alleged victims. And so I think the judge just said, none of it's coming in across the board, even though I agree. I think that there are differences about the value of some evidence versus the others, but I don't, I don't know what the final rulings were on those, but, you know, in terms of tactics, yeah. If you can get that in front of the jury, if you can say that these guys were, you know , pedophiles or whatever, that, that certainly that's useful because remember juries, jurors are people just like the rest of us. They may take a look at this. The law may say what the law is, right? And this is where I have a little bit of disagreement with some of the ultra technical lawyers, right? The ultra technical, the people who are, you know, spreadsheeting everything slicing and dicing everything, trying to analyze every single torque of the eyeball, all of that stuff. People are generally human. And so if you start to structure your trial on the , on the back of persuasion and sort of convincing people that, you know, what , what happened here was not justice in the case of this, right? Rittenhouse being prosecuted for self-defense is not justice. That's not what you're here for, whatever else you see, whatever binger says about, Rosenbalm not having a gun, all that crap, whatever fine. This is not justice. This was a 17 year old kid who was there to protect a street in Kenosha. After it burnt down the night before was running away from somebody who was assaulting him and chasing him was doing it all night, just happened to pick on the smallest youngest kid who was their only person who couldn't defend himself, chased him. He defended himself, that's justice. This prosecution is not okay. That hasn't that argument, right? There has nothing to do with body language or technical maneuvers or a person's age or anything like that, or whether they watch Fox news or not, right. That's a consistent baseline appeal to justice. And you can make a pretty good case about that. And so if you, if that is your baseline argument, and you're not , um, fighting over every single nook and cranny, every single, you know, iteration, you say, this is not justice. What we saw happen here, you can, you can hear whatever you want. Watch every single video, listen to every single witness. Nobody cares because this is not justice. And that's kind of what that's kind of what, they're what, they're what they're doing. So if you go back and you talk about gage , gross crews , and you talk about their past, if , uh , if a jury is listening in and they're trying to make a human decision, they're trying to decide what do I do about justice? We've got Kyle Rittenhouse, 17 year old kid. Yeah. It doesn't feel like prosecuting him as the right thing to do, but he also killed two people, shot another one and committed a bunch of heinous crimes. So we can't just let him get away with nothing. And so what T what oftentimes the jurors will do as human beings? Not because they heard some fancy legal arguments , not because somebody came in with 35 body language experts or $2 million, and they put together some extra or panel or whatever it is, people they want to find a fake because they want to find a reason why they can make a decision. That's going to make them feel better at night, make them sleep well at night. So in case like this, if somebody takes a look at Rittenhouse and they say, man , I don't want to convict this kid, but there are two dead people, if you can get in front of them. Yeah. But gage gross. Cruz is like a multi-time felon, Anthony Huber committed some other atrocious act. So don't worry too badly about that. Jurors, if you're concerned that these people, you know, died, these were, you know , uh , incredible heroes of society, rest assured they were it . And I'm not , I know this is not my argument, but I'm saying if you can make that argument in court and you can convince the jurors don't feel so bad about that. Kyle Rittenhouse did the world , uh , you know, D did justice here. And if you vote to acquit him, that is justice. Don't worry about these other people. Don't worry about those other charges. And that's a human argument. Right. And people resonate with that. It's good versus bad. And so yeah, if they could get that stuff in, in front of them, it's very useful. All right. Let's see if the Antica says, putting my tinfoil hat on now, perhaps a prosecutor is doing poorly on purpose to suit a different narrative. Thomas binger looks like just a tried and true prosecutor. I think that's all it is captain Jim says, Robin certainly does seem like the da is making the case for, for Rittenhouse . Not against him. My question is didn't Thomas binger prepare for this trial. Didn't he deposition his witnesses beforehand. So presumably he should know what they'll say. Yes, yes, yes. All, yes. To all of that, I do believe that the evidence wholly supports Kyle's innocence, but what is the da doing? Probably should drop the charges instead of taking his own case on camera and making a fool of himself. I agree with you, captain Jim, but you know, he could win. He could win. He can come out of this thing. Right? Most juries like to convict people. Jeremy Machida says, Rob, do you have to , uh , do you have to remember what you said a year ago? Or do you get a transcript of your testimony? My children tell me all the time that I said something different a year ago. LOL. Now I never read my own transcripts and don't make me do that either. Cause it probably changes. All right. I could probably impeach myself pretty aggressively, which I'm sure many people out there will , uh, will do for me on some of these stories one day. Uh, I know, I know people get so heated about this stuff. Little Mandy says the ADA asked Richie a question about other people he thought at the time were also after Kyle, at least a dozen times. I love how he never changed his answer. Also, in my opinion, his best quote was to a question about why he thought Rosenbaum was taking the gun. When he didn't say the words, I'm going to take your gun. Richie said, well, well he said F you and he grabbed it. Mike dropped. I think we played that one. I think little Mandy. Uh , that was the one that I played there at the very end. It was like mic drop. Well, no, no. Uh, Thomas, I can't read what's in his mind. I'm only a human being. I'm not the prosecutor's office that can read all of the defendant's minds. I can't do that, but I could hear what he said and what he did and it wasn't good. Bob Ross is here. It says, okay, let's get crazy. Let's put another little happy fire right here. Oh, that's nice. A happy little fire in this happy dumpster. Oh, that's nice. Warm and cozy. I think we got us a finished painting. Signed Thomas binger, painting meltdown. Kenosha. We've got another one. Saint Kyle says Rosenbalm died doing what he loved preying on underage boys. Oh, it's not too soon to under seven says I watched a bit of the trial today. I thought I heard Rosenbaum's girlfriend is going to testified. Wow. I heard that she had a restraining order out on him that he broke that night when he came out of the hospital who was calling her to testify. And how easily can the defense bring up a very bad criminal background of Rosenbalm thanks Rob. It's from thunder seven. Why would she testify? Was she there? Hmm . I guess maybe the defense could call her. Uh, so typically background of a victim. You know, if the prosecution opened the door to that somehow, like if they, if they talked about it or it slipped through from another witness maybe, but probably not the judge, the judge, the judge, this stuff is called. It is called a rule 4 0 3 evidence. It's overly prejudicial. It's not probative enough. And it's too harmful. It's more harmful than it is beneficial. So the judges tend to throw that stuff out. Okay. De Del SPE says the amount of time spent on lunging versus falling forward versus falling was ridiculous to the day. It felt like 10 minutes or more was spent on it today. Insert all of us are now dumber for having listened to that. Jeff from , uh , what does that Billy Madison D SPE it's true. It was the dumbest segment and the prosecutor was like, so basically after all of this, what you're saying is there was momentum going forward. I don't care what you call it. Call it falling. If you want to call it lunging. I don't care. He goes, yeah, that's what I said. Monster one says my headphones died right after the bad juror got booted. I picked up during the Ritchie testimony. We'll have to watch. The beginning is a pretty good day. A lot less video today. Uh, yesterday was just all video all day. Very, very boring. But today was better. Mr. Scott says the shields are breaking captain. I will just fire the phasers star treks in the house. Let's see. Monster one says , uh, Hey jury , you had one job. John says, seems like reckless endangerment is the only charge that seems plausible or jury is more likely to vote guilty on more serious charges. If they find someone guilty for lesser charges, not sure why they would focus on McGuinness at all. It's a good question, John. I think that part of the reason why his testimony was important because he was there. I mean, he was like right in the thick of it, probably the, the per the person closest to , uh, the action. So he, so he could come in and presumably talk about it, but it was , uh , it was also relevant. Yes, because he is the victim of the crime. And when I was talking about jurors, wanting to do the right thing and oftentimes finding that, you know, kind of fake because sometimes what they'll do is they'll split this, you know, maybe he gets acquitted on all of the murder charges or the homicide charges or the more serious felony charges, but they want to give him something because they just don't, they just don't feel comfortable leaving there without something. So maybe they give them a curfew violation or a weapons charge violation or whatever. And then that's it dismiss the others. Maybe shouldn't have a gun. Maybe shouldn't have been there, but he was, and he used it and self-defense applies. But you hit them with the other charges. You know? I think one of them's a felony. Yeah. Count six is a felony. Okay. So what is this judge going to sentence him to , uh , double Whopper, hamburgers, go have a hamburger with your attorney and a milkshake to while you're at it. Son probably. All right. Couple more old cat lady says what was in the bag, depending what was in the bag. Could it have been considered a weapon? We're going to get into a lot of that in our next segment with Ryan bulge monster one says, here is the comment from yesterday. People seem fixated on the fact that Kyle May have been any illegal possession of a firearm. As a reason, self-defense doesn't apply. I don't buy this argument. That would mean that a person who was in felony possession of cocaine and was attacked, wouldn't be able to defend themselves what it means. If someone broke into a drug dealers house, they wouldn't be able to defend themselves. The answer is yes, they would only, they would, they would be able to defend themselves that's for monster one. Yeah. And so I think we flushed that out, you know , pretty well yesterday, monster one sort of about this being a prosecutor's decision about whether they charge stuff, just because a law is on the book doesn't mean that every single time that, that technical there's a technical violation, that that automatically gets charged. A lot of this stuff is, you know, it comes, it comes to the prosecution and their discretion about whether to file charges or not tremendous is here. Says, do you think binger knew that the defense would call McGuinness and wanted to get ahead of it by calling him first? Probably. Yeah. I think that there's probably some strategy there also, there really is no other person to call also he's the victim. So he is kind of just by, by factors of , of being a victim, sort of a natural witness. Do you think the defense should have asked McGuinness about how quickly things were happening? Uh, I don't think so. I think that came out as ended . It appeared that Kyle had time to assess the situation and determined that Rosenbaum was an armed or is it not really worth asking? Cause you can know that a person can seriously harm or even kill another person with bodily forest loving your coverage of the trial Rittenhouse videos or how I found you in the first place. Really looking forward to Saturday, which is our monthly locals. Meetup takes place via zoom for supporters [email protected] We're going to meet up on Saturday , uh , on zoom. Camera's on, camera's off real names, fake names, whatever you want to do, pseudonyms whatever. And it's just super casual. I don't prepare anything. We just talk about it. I talk a lot about building community and to know people unplugging a little bit from, you know, this format and actually putting names to faces. So , uh, looking forward to seeing there as well, tremendous rereading your question. I'm not so sure. The dose , the dose they're they're technical questions that the defense could have gotten into, but you know, I don't, I don't really think that they draw out anything more. You know, some people often will , will think that the question should be as exhaustive as possible, got to ask everything. I think that is a problem as well. You know, oftentimes attorneys, there's a , there's a , uh, there's a concept in law that you, you shut up before you say that last question before you ask that last question, stop it. If you think that you're going too long, you're definitely going too long. Cause you don't need to make your point 37 different ways. Cause the jury is going to get annoyed. They're going to get irritated. They just get , they got to hear one time. And if you keep beating it into the ground over and over and over and over again, you might actually do more harm than good. And it's something they teach at at trial colleges all across the country. Kincaid says, good evening, Robin crew . I am baffled by the prosecution. This guy has conducted himself like a snake yet. He is doing most of the legwork for Kyle's defense. He inferred Hey, if not for Kyle, maybe things would have been worse. Like elsewhere. I heard Barnes is upset. Perhaps potential payouts were tied out with paying this guy. Even the whiteness, his line of questioning is framed more around the chaotic violence of the evening, suggesting a reasonable explanation of Kyle's actions. Seriously, what am I missing? How could anyone be convinced of any wrongdoing? Yeah , I couldn't find the email if the message on your locals creators page. Okay. I'll take a looking kid. Uh I'm with you on it, but I'm with you on it. Look w oftentimes when people are killed, somebody's got to get charged. So there's a reason why Kyle Rittenhouse is charged. There are dead people, so he's got to get charged and prosecuted doesn't mean it's the case of the century doesn't mean that Thomas binger has an automatic winner on his hands, but they charged it. I don't think it's a good charge, but people are dead. So somebody has got to , you know , sort of answer to that to some degree. And it's happening right now in a court of law. And it looks like a pretty serious self-defense case. So P you know , binger is a true believer. I think he's doing what he, you know , sort of born to do, but it's also not a good case. Thunder seven says when a football player, lunges to try to catch a ball and misses, he usually falls down being her as a complete moron. If he actually believes the jury thinks Rosenbaum fell and then Kyle shot him, it's obvious that Rosenbaum was reaching for Kyle's guns and jurors are not dumb. I hope you're right about that monster. One says, what's the fixation on if he had an attack helicopter or a chain or a pool cue, does it really matter if Rosenbalm is chasing Rittenhouse with the intention of doing bodily harm? Does it mean Rittenhouse can't defend himself? That's Thomas bingers argument. Let's see what YouTube has over for us over here. Uh AIJ I think the prosecution is calling the defense friendly witnesses first to discredit them before the defense can use them. Yeah. Another that's an interesting comment. And probably what other witnesses do they have? Who else can they call? Not many other people, kind of the end of the line, which begs, why did they charge the case in the first place? Probably a political decision, because this happened in 2020 in the middle of the summer of unrest, when Donald Trump, the most racist person that anybody in the media has ever seen, ever live ever was president . And so this it's sort of, you know, it got started, so they got to finish it. Now, William Martinez says, have you seen Liberty council's lawsuit versus the mandates? No, I have not 400 page lawsuit, preliminary injunction in here, a hearing on the 15th and Florida citing the EUA and religious freedom as well as a failed mandate in 2002 anthrax EUA . Oh, no. Let me write that down. Liberty counsel , Liberty counsel . I'll take a look at that. William Martinez. Thank you for sending that over. Uh, I'll I'll I'll , I'm queuing a bunch of stuff up to get through after Rittenhouse , but , uh, we still, we we're we're we're only right now , so here for the foreseeable future, which is two weeks, it'll go by quick. This trial is moving fast. Zach young says, if Kyle is found not guilty, does the guy who gets shot in the arm get charged with attempted murder? No, he won't because it's, again, it's prosecutorial discretion. They just get to decide being her is not going to turn around and just say, oh, now we're going to charge you because he's already been making the case that he's the victim. So it's not as mechanical as a lot of people think it's sort of like a light switch. Like it's either gage gross Kreutz or Kyle Rittenhouse, a prosecutor looked at this, the DA's office looked and said, Nope, Rittenhouse is the problem. So they decided that that's how they were going to charge. And they're not going to flip it around the other way. All right. Trooper said, can't wait for your cameo tomorrow. Even if you can't drop in on Nick, you still owe attorney Tom. We talked, we talked about that one. Uh, Zach young saw that one William Martinez AIJ says, got that one. Let's see. Valentino says, what's the difference legally between what binger did with McGuinness and treating the witness as hostile as a layman, it seems very close to it, essentially. That's essentially what it was. Uh , basically what we're talking about is the distinction between during a direct exam, when you're calling your own witness, when binger calls McGuinness , it's his witness. And so the way that this, you know , w the way the direct examination works typically is it's very, open-ended being binger says McInnes , tell me what happened. And he did that , uh , walking around capturing footage, got thrown out of the court building, blah, blah, blah, open-ended questions. During a cross examination , you can ask leading questions. That's where you're guiding them through the process. Oh, isn't it true that you saw Rosenbalm hiding behind the car? Yes. It's also true. That Rosenbaum said F-you , isn't it? Yes, it is. And it's also likely it's also true that Rosenbalm okay. You're guiding them through. You want very short, coordinated responses. And so when a witness sort of does not work with you during a direct examination, you can flip that and then sort of be granted permission to use a cross-examination type of technique with somebody who you might ordinarily not be able to use that with. That's really all that is about. Let's see a couple other questions. Oh, that was on YouTube KB and says, Rob, I watched the trial today. You got the highlights. Thanks for cherry-picking . You're welcome. Happy to do it , KB. I think you're being facetious, but that's what we got today. Unheard . PFL says people keep claiming he should have not been there with a gun. Neither should have the protestors burning cars, or am I wrong? I think you're right about that. And we're going to hear from Baldwin , who says that in his opinion, Kyle right now said every right to be there. Just like everybody else did law enforcement wasn't imposing any curfew violations. And this is a situation where nobody got charged with crimes for that. As far as we can tell, unheard of says people, we are sliding edge says thoughts on Nate? The lawyer's asserting a , perhaps a witnesses today was the prosecution getting the bad content out early so they can put forth their case. I don't know what else. I don't know what their cases , who else do they have? Who's going to come out and testify. I dunno . Uh , I mean, other other protestors , presumably, right? Let's just think about this. Just even from the boots on the ground perspective, who was on the ground that day? People like Kyle Rittenhouse people, not like Kyle Rittenhouse. So what we've heard from our , from all the people kind of like Kyle Rittenhouse, you've got McGinnis daily caller . Uh , although we had Washington who didn't, we couldn't really tell one way or the other. And so he was sort of a neutral person. He was observing the protest . He was a live streamer, but not a protester . He's observing it. Doesn't have much bad to say about Rittenhouse has some problematic things to say about Rosenbalm so more or less neutral, but every prosecution witness that is sort of in the Kyle Rittenhouse camp is going to be all beneficial to Kyle Rittenhouse and McGinnis , the closest person to the entire altercation backs up Kyle. So who else are they going to bring in? It's going to have to be somebody from the other bucket. It's going to have to be people who are part of the protest or riot or category, and they're not going to make great witnesses. I'm not, I'm not sure. I mean, there's a lot of different thoughts on this. I think honestly, it's bad prosecution and it's a bad case. And so they're just trying to do what they can with, you know, terrible facts. That's from sliding edge. Mandalore wise , oh one says, starting with social media, detective up to the last a witness I'm open to believing that the prosecution strategy here is simply waste as much time as he can to bore and irritate the jury. Defendant needs to object at least a bit just to kind of throw them off. Yeah. I can see that, man. The Lord , there were some times I'm like, yeah, you can object on that. But by and large Mark Richards was just letting it go. I don't , he objected maybe two or three times a day. If I was keeping counts . Yeah, that's a good point. It's very loose. But again, folks, this whole courtroom is very loose. This judge is extremely loose. So you got to remember, you know, attorneys, good attorneys kind of find the frequencies, right? If Mark Richards and Corey [inaudible] FEC were in federal court, they would not be lounging over the, over the bench like this, right, mark. Richard's gonna be sitting here like, Hey, what up? It's a loose course , uh , court playing jeopardy and stuff. You saw even how jury selection was very loose. That type of stuff wouldn't fly elsewhere, but working , working here more or less. So you've got to keep that in mind, find the frequency match. The court match, the jurisdiction match. The judge, John Fraser says, remember this, if the mob ends up controlling our judicial system, justice will be forever lost in this country. It's true to that. It's why, that's why this is important. Why having these conversations is important, accountability, transparency, and justice. We say at the start of every show, highly, highly important , uh, and tiger woods. If he says, of course you are biased towards Kyle, as you often say, you're a defense attorney. It's true. By the way, I am a defense lawyer finding that people are accusing you of something you've already accused yourself of yes, I am. I am favorable to the defense. I think that most of you know, most, most government criminal cases have problems with them. All of them, I think have problems with them. And I don't like overzealous prosecutors and I'm not gonna, you know, I'm not gonna make overly favorable arguments for the prosecutor when they don't exist. If he had a great, if somebody came out here today and it was like, yeah , actually look at , listen, Kyle Rittenhouse said this and said this and said this. And there were three times when I saw him , uh , approach Rosenbalm and, and shout this and shout that and shout. The other thing didn't happen. All we heard today was just testimony that defends Rittenhouse, it's kind of funny that they even brought the charges anyways. Uh, Evan , Eva M says, Hey, Rob, it's Cora . You were doing a great job. Thanks. Thank you, Cora. I appreciate that. Uh, we got a couple others here before we jump into our last segment. Tom Richard says, could the defense claim death by suicide to bring in the fact that Rosenbalm released that day was released that day from a hospital after a suicide attempt? Um, yeah, they, I mean, yeah, they could, but I don't think that they need to, you know, that would be another type of justification. In other words, that that Rosenbalm was trying to get Kyle to shoot him, to kill him, which would be a whole new legal theory. I don't even think that's necessary. It's more about Rittenhouse fearing for his safety, for your free fearing for his life. Feeling that his life was in danger. That's what justifies the shooting in the self-defense funky cold Molina says you think Kyle will end up taking the stand? I do not. I don't think it's even necessary at all. Uh, he's too young for it . No reason to put them up there. The videos and the witnesses are , are speaking for themselves. No reason at all to do it. Uh, we have another one from Brandon says Anthony Huber , skater boy, his dad is an assistant da in Kenosha. Well, very interesting. I did not know that that might have some other, some other bearing on , uh, the decision to prosecute. Doesn't it? Thoughts on the judge carrying the weight of the defense today on correcting and calling out the prosecution? Sort of depends. If you think that the defense should have been more proactive, if you , if you think so, and you're going to like what the judge did, if you kind of just, you know , are okay with the defense, letting this thing ride because every single video evidence at piece of evidence, every single witness so far has been pretty, pretty good for the defense. Oh yeah. Just let it, let it go. I can see it. And funky cold said, do you think Kyle will take the stand? I don't think so at all. So let's do a couple more questions over from a local's bill. Given says, Rob, is it possible? The protector called McGinnis as a witness to disprove him before the defense could use him? Probably. So that's sort of called drawing the sting . You got to get the bad facts out typically before the other people do former. Leo says badgering, your own witness. Is that a new first? How come the defense didn't object? Because if somebody is destroying themselves, you let them do it. Three girly says just because the witness does not see a weapon doesn't mean Rosenbaum doesn't have a weapon. You could have had a number of smaller weapons could be deadly. And regardless of the weapon, anyone could have picked it up. And it's plausible that nobody saw this at the time it was dark outside, unless Rosenbaum is near a light in the witnesses near him. The witness is not going to see a weapon, poor Kyle. He's having to relive all of this over and over again. They are, they're playing the videos one after another. Uh, let's see a couple more. I'm gonna fly through some of these. Can the defense use a witness at the prosecution already called? Yeah, they could. They could call. They could recall a witness. No doubt about that. Speech unleash says, do you think the reason why the prosecutor was taking down that witness so that no one would believe anything he says, so he would be a defense witness. He is basically nullified him as credible. Uh, I don't, I don't think so. Like, you know, cause you could do that during cross examination . That's what cross exam is. If he didn't, if he didn't think he was a good witness just should not have called him. But I, I don't know what other witnesses he has. All right , Mr. Nobody says just saying Richard is a hard guy. We should start calling him Pete steel . He punked that guy. So thoroughly, couple others here. We've got all right, this is a big one. Let's read this. Uh , are, are the possible lies from Kyle like age or unsure EMT status, going to be a problem for the defense? I am a paramedic. I know that there a difference between a lifeguard, BLS and EMT, has anyone verified his credentials? Do you think that Kyle's trigger and muzzle control in the face of extreme stress will help him if when it is fully brought up in court, not many people would at his age have controlled , see threats versus non threats. Many of us would not have not would have seen everyone as a threat after being on the ground for a civilian use of force. Self-defense a prosecutor alluded to specific rules for deadly force with Richie's testimony about the attackers lunging for the weapon, presumably to use against Kyle or another . Will that meet the burden ricotta and his guests were speaking today about two things. One, is it possible with your experience that the prosecution will not meet the burden of proof before the defense even has to present their case? And two , is it possible that the prosecution is putting the least favorable witnesses on the stand early? So testimony fades better. Witnesses stays in the minds because they are ladder. So yeah, I mean, yes, it is all possible. Yes, they could do that. But again, these are, these are good witnesses. This was McGinnis who was standing right there. So if they bring in another witness who, and there's also 17 videos or 21 videos that have all been admitted. So if all of those videos show what happened, then I don't know what , uh , what a witness who comes in and provides a conflicting narrative. What benefit that does to the government's case. Okay. The government is bringing in witnesses. If they bring in somebody else that tells a different story, then that undermines the credibility of their entire case. Doesn't it? Because now you have the government themselves, right? It's basically a not guilty right there. If the government comes in and they say, listen, we think you murdered somebody. This guy says that you did it out of cold blood. This guy says you did it out of self-defense. We think that they're both essentially credible. We're going to put them both on the stand. We got both their statements, even McGinnis . We think he's so credible. He's even a victim in this case. And now we've got a conflict, but jurors, we're going to put them both right in front of you. And you're going to have to make a decision. Do you believe McInnes that we heard today? Or do you believe somebody else who's going to come in tomorrow? Who's going to be one of these better witnesses that they're saving for later. Who's going to come in and say the exact opposite of McGuinness that the government is going to put both of these people in front of the jury and then ask the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you kidding me? You just gave him reasonable doubt, right? On the , on a silver platter, you said McInnis said this, our other witness said this they're opposite. You don't know who to believe. Beyond a reasonable doubt is pretty, pretty much obvious outright. There it's clearly doubt. So they need to have a consistent story. They don't get to do the shotgun approach, prosecution defense, a strategy where we're just going to throw a bunch of stuff out there and see which one the jury likes. If there's a logical inconsistency, the reasonable doubt argument is saying, there's a bunch of doubt as to how this happened here. The government is saying it themselves. One witness says it happened this way. This guy says it happens. That way. Sounds pretty doubtful to me. They haven't met their burden of proof. End of the case, everything else is dismissed. So yes, they might bring in better witnesses, but if they have a conflicting story, so who cares, then you impeach them. And the judge and the jury gets to make a decision. And if the prosecution delivers a conflicting narrative in their own case in chief, the jury has no choice, but to throw it right out, as far as I can tell, all right , let's see what else tos forever says, Rob, might it be possible once Rittenhouse is free that the precedence of this case can be used to uphold the second amendment and use its precedence for impeachment. So no on the impeachment. I mean, who are they going to impeach? And number two on the second amendment, you know, yes, it might be persuasive. This is not a Supreme court case. This is not going to reset, you know, law jurisprudence throughout the country, but certainly in Kenosha, right? It's good. It's good precedence there, but it's not going to impact, you know, gun rights cases in Arizona. For example, be brave says enjoying the insanity of this trial. I saw McGinnis on Tim Poole . He was very careful in what he said and appeared honest. Same as on the stand. Yeah. I liked him. He seemed like a credible guy. Monster one says was Rosenbaum committing suicide. Did he want to die? Don't know. Don't know about that one. Let's see another one here. I finally became a supporter. Awesome. Welcome. Should have done it during Shovan. Also, if you look back at, when the prosecutor played the video, we started right after he was saying gun. So the witness did actually talk about it. Go play the YouTube video of the Tucker interview. I'm glad you made it. Sorry. You didn't drop your name in there next time. Let me know who you are. Shout out. I'm not gas as , so this Barnes thing , uh , not to disparage him, but possibly the defense just send them away because they simply felt like they didn't need to pay for all of his experts when it's such an easy case to win on his face. I mean, hell, at this point, they could let the prosecution win the case for them. Yeah. I mean, yes. There's some truth to that. I think, I mean the defense could just go have lunch. Every single witness that comes out said Rosenbalm was a lunatic , Cochran house was running away. He said, you know , we're going to get into more of that. Former Leo says that sounded like a good close , and we're going to fly through a couple of these because we still have a lot of show left. Vancey kit says, I'm pretty sure the defense could close with just two sentences. All that matters is if you think you could be safe, when someone with an unknown intentions makes an unprovoked attack on you while holding a firearm at the answer was no. Then you should say not guilty from VNT cause prime. I like it. Three girls . He says binger brought in the Guinness and other witnesses because that's all he has is like grasping at straws. It seems like a colossal waste of time. If Kyle is found not guilty, does he have any legal recourse to Sue people? I mean, if there's, if there's some sort of , uh , you know, evidence of, of prosecutorial misconduct, but probably not. I mean, truthfully probably not bowel the rise me says, Rob, do you think the prosecutor was falling forward? Or is he lunging flat on his face? Sorry, I had to do it. I'm glad you did because that was a really good one that was worth it. Uh , LA medic says the prosecutor stated that he was going to be putting the girlfriend of Rosenbaum on the stand. Well, that opened the door for all of his history. Does that not seem like a bad idea? I don't know why he would put her on there. Was she there? If she was there then , um, then she seems relevant. Otherwise I don't know what she's relevant for, unless she wants to come in and talk about his mental stuff, but I don't know what that would be relevant for. I mean, Rittenhouse wouldn't know that crime junkie says, I don't think the prosecutor was smart enough, but don't you think it may be that the prosecutor called this witness in order to get ahead of the defense to get the information he wanted out of them and then discredit him? I think I explained that earlier. I don't really, if it, if they are, it's not a good strategy. GDI says the prosecutor just wants to audition for the remake of the movie liar, liar, which is a great movie. J he says totally off topic, but you finally hit 1 21 subs. You were at one 20 forever. It appears the new format is working in your favor. Keep it up. That's from Jay Heath . Do we do that was that tonight. We got a ton of, we've got a huge audience tonight. So shout out to everybody. Welcome to all the newcomers. Glad that you're here. Appreciate you being here and the support. Uh, thanks for noticing that J Heath former Leo says didn't hear any testimony about fields of fire or specific location that put them in the line of fire. That's true. Didn't hear that either LA medics , as the prosecutor wants to be able to say that Kyle was shooting Rosenbalm while he was going down and no longer a threat was fighting very hard for that. We covered that today and let's see here. Yes. Uh, okay. I'm not gas is asking about the locals link. So we'll get that up. Greg Morat says won't the ballistics say if he was standing up or falling when he got shot, I'm sure that they will. I don't think that the government is bringing in a , are they bringing a coroner or an expert witness? I don't think that they're bringing in an expert witness. I may, maybe they are, I don't know. LT 13 says I am surprised binger. Didn't bring up the insurrection and Richard McGuinness being falsely accused by New York times being a writer with his picture. Yeah. I didn't know that either LA medics has gross Kreutz will be their prime witness planned for Monday, but he wasn't there for Rosenbalm Rosenbaum was the trigger. Literally that started this whole thing. Gross groups was after the fact. So sort of the , the theory being that Kyle Rittenhouse, his self-defense privilege started when he was being chased by Rosenbalm . Everybody was then attacking him after that fact. So that self-defense that protection that private umbrella sort of would extend into gross Kreutz which , which would be how I would handle that as a defense. Tremendous says, excellent point. You just made about not asking too many questions. I found myself at times getting annoyed with binger about going on and on and on about nonsense. Doesn't seem to have to do anything with anything. I bet the jury feels the same way. Do I care about the yellow pants, man? No. Do I care about fires that happened the night before? No. Do I care about the kid that is about to get his head bashed in? Yes, I do. That is from tree Mendez who was in the house and that is a very good point. People get annoyed with it. Matthew says how many people portray this case as extremely important for self-defense in the U S will the outcome have an have an effect on how other self-defense cases are decided? So I think that that in the, in the, in the minds of the public, right? Yes, it will. And people are going to have , uh, you know, th these images sort of hard-coded in how they operate themselves. So I think it's important for those reasons, that being said, in terms of legal precedents , whether this is going to be dispositive, you know , is this, is this decision going to impact gun laws across the country a month from now, once we have a verdict? No, it will not. Now if Rittenhouse is convicted and it's , uh , you know , uh , yes, that's a problem. His, his defense team will appeal this. Then it's gonna work its way up through the circuit courts, something like this, you know, theoretically, depending on what happens in the trial could land up on the Supreme court. And then if there was a decision about self-defense and the second amendment that needed to be set at that level, something like that was decided up there would then percolate and spread throughout all of the , the rest of the country. But this is just a one court in Kenosha, Wisconsin, that's it? So it might have some impact there. It might have some impact in how prosecutors around this country charge cases like this, prosecutors might say, oh, well, they didn't convict Rittenhouse. So we're not going to charge this other person in that similar situated self-defense case. But that's, that's really about it. You know, until it works its way up to a more , uh, to , to a higher level court, a Supreme court, then it's not going to have binding precedence , uh, throughout the rest of the country. And we still have a full segment left, see row says, Rob, isn't it an unwritten rule of evidence, not ask a question. You don't already know the answer to yeah. It's like the rule I asked you on day one. If you thought binger was doing a good job, you still feel the same. Same on day four. You can't cherry pick when binger doesn't know what a cherry is like, I I'm I'm, I'm trying not to cherry pick on this case like that. Those were the interesting bits of testimony today. Binger, when he's not talking about what we clipped about, he's talking about random nonsense. That doesn't matter. So watch, yeah . Watch the full testimony. If you think that there was a zinger there that that made the government's case, I'm open to it. If I'm missing something, tell me which ones I missed from bingers from bigger, but I don't think I did. I don't think he's doing a good job. I think he's doing a terrible job. I think that this case is factually a disaster for the government. I mean, if I can be so candid about it, every single witness we're going to hear from the last one today, did them no favors and, and binger has a lot of the long pauses that come out. He asks a question, gets an answer. He doesn't like, and doesn't really know where to go from there. Oh , captain Jim says your lounge in yo what's up should be a lit show. Intro. Shouldn't be a lit should be a , a show. So this this deal, the yo judge, I'm just, I'm just courting it up today. Rittenhouse over there. We're defending, we're fighting for justice in a court of law, captain Jim. All right . Couple more. Uh, GDI says the prosecutor is auditioning. I already saw that one monster. One says, remember the scene from my cousin Vinny, when he's interviewing his girlfriend, Vinnie asked the judge for permission to treat her as hostile witness. The judge gives him a funny look and says, she's your witness. Yeah. Which is, which is kind of what's happening today. Yeah. Do whatever you want your witness. Uh , let's see the guy that fired the first shot in the air and that was known to be with Rosenbaum the whole night. Is he going to be a witness? Probably. I think his name was [inaudible] . Something like that. Little Mandy says Richie also got in that Kyle was backed into a corner and the man tried to take the gun. He had pointed away from him, perfectly laid out for self-defense. I also saw that don't know if I copped captured that clip chairman of the bar board says, I heard Barnes say, if someone grabs a weapon, someone else's holding or I suppose tries to that person is no longer considered unarmed, even if they were unarmed prior to that moment, is that true? Seems like it would also affect the Amman Arbery case chairman of the board. So I don't know what Barnes is referencing and I don't know of a black and white rule like that. Like if somebody, you know, is touching a gun, it's now their gun, you know, I don't know. I don't know. Um, I don't know where that might come from, but you know, generally what you're talking about is sort of a reasonable person standard. And when they were firing the weapon or they doing so under the reasonable belief that they were, you know , about to be killed or in risk of serious bodily injury, something to those, to those effects, right? If somebody, for example, you know, came up. So anytime you get a question like this, you can just sort of play around with it mentally. If that is the rule, if someone else is holding or tries to hold that person, they're no longer their weapon, they no longer are considered unarmed. So if somebody just walks up and sort of, you know, grabs your gun like this, you just get to shoot them since they're now in possession of a weapon. Like no, right? You talk about whether a person is under a reasonable fear of imminent death or imminent physical injury. And then that would justify the shooting. And so, you know, every one of these things, people are looking for an easy cut and dry rule. And it's just, isn't that simple. A lot of this requires that's what we do. It's why people, you know , spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers. RDB five says, can binger withdraw the charges and crawl under the table and cry like a baby? Well, if he had any dignity left, he would do that and save what's left of his honor. But he's not, even though he might should be crime junkie. Jessica is here, says, I think you're right about the media. Just blowing the situation out of proportion during the elections, as it was beneficial. I remember hearing about Kyle being racist for a little, I thought he killed someone of another race other than white. Now that Biden is president. Just like you said, they are just here because they needed to end what they started. But even if Kyle doesn't get charged, the damage was already done. Yeah . If he doesn't get convicted. Yeah. He's already done. Yeah. I mean, they, they got their pound of flesh. They got their story that they needed to. Jay says, can you Sue a prosecutor for libel or something? Prosecutor knowingly lied and slandered Kyle multiple times typically, no they're going to have what's called qualified immunity. Same things that police have because they are government employees. They get special protections that you and I don't get. So they get to do more or less, whatever the hell they want. I think binger, according to tremendous, wants to call Rosenbaum's girlfriend to say the only thing that was in the bag was toiletries. Not sure how relevant it is, who knows what he put in the bag after he left her. And how is Kyle supposed to know what was in the bag? The other, the other witness today already said he saw toiletries in the bag . So I bet they don't call her. So the door is an opened about the mental hospital visit, which surprise, surprise the judge hasn't ruled on. Good information there . Tremendous. Thank you for that. Yeah. We're going to hear from ballsy here in the next segment, we got a couple more questions and then we'll just jump into the next segment. Finally, we've got captain Kirk says , uh , keep asking questions. My esteem, sir . Starfleet wants to know, love your show. It's very nice. Well, thank you captain. And uh, Christopher says, agreed . Binger seems to be grasping for straws when talking to the witnesses, curious if that will change with the different witnesses. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if other witnesses come out and they give a directly oppositional narrative. They're going to look like morons. Mutton chops says, please watch the Tucker Carlson interview. I did watch it. McInnis said that he lunged prosecutor lied and cut the video right after the statement. You're kidding me. Did he do that? Wow. If he did that then uh , yeah, that should be, there's a rule of completeness that exists in a lot of these things. Not supposed to do that around the world says, are you doing regular locals written houses, breakdowns, not really on locals. We're doing the locals , uh, morning shows not, not re not consistently, but my mornings are starting to free up a little bit. And so we're doing , uh, we're doing some locals, just, you know, just chit chats, morning show prep. Chit-chats that's about it though. I saw C Reed says, Rob me thinks that the prosecution has something huge to convict. And all this junk is just to get to the fence, to underestimate their adversary. I think you're giving them way too much credit on that one. I think that they think that this is their case of the century. They've probably think they're doing a great job and that they're going to win this thing. Let's see how that works for them . All right. Those were great questions over from our [email protected] We'd love it. If you'd support us over there. Cause we have a very interesting monthly locals meetup happening this Saturday. You can find the registration link over there, come check it out, watching the watchers.locals.com and thank you to all of our support on YouTube as well. All right. And so we're going to jump into our final segment, super extra long show today, but man, there's a lot of good testimony today in the trial. So all right, let's get into it. Who is this? Our final witness, Ryan bulge, Kyle Rittenhouse trial day four was the final witness of the day. And I super check coming in from Jonathan . We're going to take those at the end of this segment today, we're going to learn a lot more about who Ryan Ballz is. He's actually a veteran. He was somebody who was part of the Kyle Rittenhouse crew . He's this guy, he was called by the government. This is a government witness. Thomas binger. The prosecutor called him turns out this guy was in fact, a veteran was hanging out with Kyle kind of a mentor to him recognize that Kyle was pretty young and was keeping a good close watchful eye over him as they were sort of protecting the streets in Kenosha, Wisconsin. And so let's learn a little bit more about Ryan Baltz . What was he doing there in Kenosha? What was going on that night? Why was he down there? What was his interaction and his impression of Kyle Rittenhouse? Here's what he said in court today. Rittenhouse trial day. For

Speaker 4:

What else to you about himself or his qualifications or anything like that

Speaker 7:

Early on in the night? No.

Speaker 4:

Is it fair to say that as the night went on while you were on the ground in front of the 59th street car source, the defendant was also in that proximity , uh , area that is correct. Were there times during the evening when you would chat with him about various things that is correct. What was your impression of the defendant?

Speaker 7:

Um , he seemed like a young and impressionable kid. Um, he used that term kind of broadly there someone way younger than myself. Um, he seemed to be really interested in what I had done in life. Um, when Jason locales , he showed up, he seemed to be interested in what he had done in life. Um, he'd explained some of the stuff he had been doing. Uh, the lifeguard being a lifeguard , being an EMT certified, stuff like that.

Speaker 4:

So the defendant told you that he was a certified EMT. This is correct. And that he was 19 years old. This is correct. Okay. Okay. Um,

Speaker 1:

Okay. So did you see how binger, just let that meatball just hang out there for a little bit and you see the camera two cameras zoomed in on a Kyle Rittenhouse over there. What are you saying? He said he was 19. He wasn't 19. That little liar. 17 year old, little teenage lying punk. Oh, he told you he was EMT certified too . Well, guess what he wasn't. And you knew that didn't you there Ryan? Yeah, I knew it. Okay. So my desk , um, I guess that means he's a murderer because he lied about his age and his credentials. So he's guilty of homicide or he's just a liar according to the Thomas binger. So he goes on now and why is the prosecutor doing this? Because he wants to show that Rittenhouse was acting outside of the law. This pattern of consistently breaking the rules, took the gun from Dominic black, without his permission went there and was in violation of curfew. There was a city law, an order of there. He didn't have his mask on in addition to it, you know, he was out there and this whole thing was just flouting the rules. He also lied about it all. So Kyle Rittenhouse is just this derelict like teenager is just monster of society. Thomas binger is getting it out of people who were part of his very own crew. So then he goes on and we talk about this about the recklessness. Reckless is all over the charges, reckless endangerment to multiple people and reckless, intentional homicide for Rosenbalm. So now he's talking about Kyle Rittenhouse being under-prepared under prepped, not adequately equipped to go out into such a dangerous war zone. What does that imply that Kyle Rittenhouse is reckless. Somebody else who wasn't reckless would have been better prepared. In fact, this guy, oh, he had body armor on, he had all sorts of other gear collar written out . I didn't have any of that. Here's what he said.

Speaker 4:

What did you think about the defendant being there that night?

Speaker 7:

He had as much, right. As anybody else to be there.

Speaker 4:

Did it seem like he was , um, properly equipped or prepared , uh, to , uh , be out there doing what

Speaker 7:

He seemed a little under equipped, but, and under experienced as well, which is one of the reasons we kind of stayed with them .

Speaker 4:

When you say we stayed with him, who do you

Speaker 7:

Mean? Um, Dan and merged us in Colette and the female. Did you ,

Speaker 4:

You feel like , um, you needed to keep an eye on the defendant?

Speaker 7:

She seemed like it. Yes and no. Um, I felt like as young as he looked and what, the way he was the, just the general way he was carrying himself, the protesters would have seen that as a weakness and tried to exploit that

Speaker 1:

Kind of like what happened, didn't it, it's kind of exactly what happened. Rosenbalm as we're going to hear was out there causing a lot of ruckus this entire night, but actually latched on soon as he saw a Rittenhouse . And so this gentlemen obviously sounds like he's got much more control. It sounds like he's got a lot more experience in this situation. Somebody is a veteran, had body armor knows what it's like to be in a situation like this and kind of took Kyle Rittenhouse under his wing and said , yeah, it seemed a little bit young, little under equipped , but you know , nothing out of the ordinary. And he had every right to be there, just like everybody else did. And , uh, kind of sounds like that's some favorable testimony for our friend, Kyle Rittenhouse. Now an interesting story comes out when Thomas binger asks Mr. Balch about Rittenhouse and about the defendant, the , uh , the alleged victim Rosenbaum says specifically , uh, did you, do you, do you remember any of the, two of them kind of getting together earlier in the night that they haven't seen any interactions that you can tell us about here today? He said, yeah, actually they did. Let me talk about it.

Speaker 4:

When you describe these interactions with the people walking past, was the defendant present for any of that? He had one exchange that I saw who was that with? Just some random person that crowd screamed. you at the defendant. Yes. How did the defendant react to that? You said I love you too. Ma'am um, oh , you mentioned earlier that there was some sort of report of someone in a red shirt with bald head who was reported to be involved.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So I actually missed that. I mixed up that clip. That was them asking bulge about whether Rittenhouse got into it with anybody else. And he was running down the street. Apparently some lady says F you . And he says, I love you too. Ma'am and you heard audible laughter there in the, in the jury, in the courtroom. Now, whether that came from the jury, I don't know, but it's kind of Kyle Rittenhouse, who kind of shows himself to be a kind of this spunky, little funny, fun, you know, 17 year old kid at the time running down the street, somebody says F you, I love you too. Ma'am now, if you listen to the full testimony, Baltz later comes back out and says, I told them don't, don't do that next time. Right? You sort of, you don't don't feed the trolls is what he told him . Good advice for a young man. And , uh, but it got a laughter out of the courtroom. He goes, that's pretty funny. That's pretty clever little comeback there. And Kyle Rittenhouse, if you notice this, he leans over to his attorney and he says, I remember that lady, w C C, if you think that, that's what he said. That's sort of what I read on his lips here. Quick replay. Here's Kyle Rittenhouse leaning over to his attorney, Corey cheer , FEC about that lady who shouted F you to him. I'm sort of repeating

Speaker 4:

Of someone in a red shirt with bald head

Speaker 1:

And look at that smirk on his face. Uh , it's good. A quick moment of levity there for Kyle Rittenhouse, because they'd been playing videos of him shooting and killing people for the last two days or so. So there's good lady says F-you he gets a laugh out of it and they get to play that for a minute for him . So , uh , that's good stuff in, in the , uh, in the trial today. Now I remember that lady says, Kyle Rittenhouse, let's see what else we have now. Rosenbalm this is the second clip that I was prefacing earlier. This is when binger now transitioned, goes to Ryan bulge and says, all right, you were hanging out with Rittenhouse. You saw him a lot. You were hanging out with a lot of other people around the streets of Kenosha. Tell me what happened with Rosenbalm. What did you think of him? Did you ever see him? Here's what he says.

Speaker 4:

Let me start by asking whatever report you heard , uh, regarding Mr. Rosenbaum at that particular time, you, did you ever see him at that time?

Speaker 7:

Um, I seen someone fitting the description to kind of milling in and out of the groups that were coming through. Um, every time he was around the groups, when, now that I knew who Joseph Rosenbaum was , and if you can confirm it , who he was and stuff , um, he was not organic with the protestors .

Speaker 4:

What do you

Speaker 7:

Mean by that? They didn't seem comfortable with his presence or the people that were with him who was with him? Uh, he had a male and a female that were with him pretty much consistently throughout the night.

Speaker 4:

So you saw those folks together? Him and the man, the female. Did you ever see them speaking to one another?

Speaker 7:

The male and the female? Yes. But as far as them talking to him directly? No .

Speaker 4:

So you never saw Mr. Rosenbaum talked to that male or female? No. And you never saw the male and female talk to Mr. Rosenbaum? No,

Speaker 7:

But your ,

Speaker 4:

You saw them in proximity to one another. So you're making some sort of assumption that they had some sort of association. Is that fair to say?

Speaker 7:

Um, I saw them in close proximity with each other several times, which led to that assumption. Okay.

Speaker 4:

Um, tell us about the first time that you observed Mr. Rosenbaum.

Speaker 7:

Um, the first time he was just getting aggravated when someone in the crowd and the protesters were trying to like separate him from whoever that one .

Speaker 1:

Okay. So he starts going into that and I think I have this in the next clip. Yeah. So, so he starts giving us a little bit of a background here. Uh, tell us about Rosenbalm the first time you saw him. Uh, he starts getting aggravated with everybody in the crowd. And this goes back to a prior point. I made earlier in the show in a prior segment, talking about the distinction between , uh , different witnesses that might come into court. So we've already heard from McGinnis . We're already hearing from bulge one version, one narrative, a consistent everybody's rowing the same direction. Everybody's agreeing that this guy Rosenbalm was a problem. So if the government comes out and brings back any other of these protesters , anybody else who was involved there that comes out and suddenly says Rosenbalm was a peach. He was just this nice guy rolling around, trying to have civil, peaceful debates with everybody there in Kenosha. If, if anybody comes out and says that they're going to look like fools, because the government's own witnesses came out and said the opposite of it and there's video to support their claims. So I'm not sure that we're going to get this big bait and switch from the government because the facts don't support it. Here is what Baltz was saying to Thomas binger saying, this guy is very aggressive and he was the entire night here. It is.

Speaker 4:

Tell us about the first time that you observed Mr. Rosenbaum .

Speaker 7:

Um, the first time he was just getting aggravated when someone in the crowd and the protesters were trying to like separate him from whoever that was, and he was shouting, you know, you kind of things to everyone. And they kind of walked off. And one of the things that stood out to me was the tall male that was with him , had a hand gun in his hand with the finger on the trigger, pointed down to the ground.

Speaker 4:

Now you had an AR 15. This is correct. And you had your hand on the butt of that AR 15? No.

Speaker 7:

At no point hand on the grip with the fingers forward along the side of the receiver .

Speaker 4:

I , I misspoke when I said, but I mean, I , the grip, the pistol.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So they go down that road. But what you see here Rosenbalm was getting aggravated with the, some , with somebody in the crowd, yelling F you, right? Uh there's there's , uh , there's this consistent narrative there's consistent theme. Rosenbalm is the instigator. He's the provocateur, the government's case sort of hinges on the fact that Rittenhouse was the person who started it. We heard this in the opening statement from Thomas binger . We heard it yesterday, when he was doing his direct examination of detective Martin Howard, it's been this consistent theme that written house was chasing Rosenbalm because that is what shatters the self-defense doctrine. You can't use it. If you provoke the fight, you don't get to go slap somebody in the back of the head. When they turn around to hit you in the face, shoot them and drop them dead. And then starting suddenly claimed self-defense you started it. You deserve to get popped in the face for hitting them in the back of the head. First, that has been the theme of the government's case. Doesn't work that well, unless you can prove the Rittenhouse was in fact provoking Rosenbaum . And there's a consistent theme that has come out that that's not the case. We even heard it from the detective himself yesterday, that Rosenbalm allegedly was hiding in waits . It seemed like he couldn't use the word ambush because there was an objection that was sustained by the judge, but did use the word hiding. And the detective agreed with that. Then we get to date. McGuinness says something very similar. That Rosenbalm was being aggressive. Now we hear from bulge, same thing, three for three government witnesses, including a detective who reviewed 17 different body cameras or different surveillance footage. So not sure that that's going to change starting tomorrow with when they call somebody else. Here is bulge again. Every single time that I saw Rosenbalm he wasn't just aggressive. He was hyper aggressive. Here is court today, Rittenhouse day for

Speaker 4:

Now, we were talking about , uh , Mr. Rosenbaum and your observations of him. And I think you described something out in the street , uh, with some of the protesters that are he yelled F you to them, something along those lines. What else did you see him do that night?

Speaker 7:

Every time I encountered Joseph Rosenbalm , he was hyper aggressive and acting out in a violent,

Speaker 4:

The manner . And we say violent manner. You , you saw him hitting, punching, kicking. He was

Speaker 7:

Always having to be restrained by someone.

Speaker 4:

Okay. And I, I understand that. Did you ever see him hit anyone

Speaker 7:

As the crowd was pretty good about getting in between him and whoever it was? If he landed a blow, I didn't see it, but he definitely wanted to.

Speaker 4:

Well, now you have no idea. Do you what was going on? And Mr. Rosenbaum's had no, you'd never met him before that night. No. Okay. So let's just keep to your observations. If we can. How tall are you? Five. Nine. How tall was Mr. Rosemont? 5, 4, 5, 3. So much shorter and smaller than you? Yes, sir. Um, now I know you want to talk.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, he was, he was only acting physically aggressive there, Ryan, but you can't tell what's going on in his mind. Do you? So why don't you stick to the facts also, by the way, he's what like five, three. So he's short too. So not only do you not know what's in his head, but he's also short. What kind of questions are these? And this is a prosecution calling their own witness. I don't want , you want to make, Rosenbalm look like a victim, not like a hyper aggressive, short lunatic. Who's out there with short man syndrome, trying to go out there and instigate fights with every single person around the streets of Kenosha. Detective said it. McInnis said it Baltz said it here's binger yet again, actually

Speaker 4:

See him actually see him.

Speaker 1:

What was that one?

Speaker 4:

Um, now I know you want to talk about what you believe he was intending to do, but my question to you was, did you ever actually see him hit anyone? No. Did you ever actually see him kick anyone here? It goes again. No. Did you ever actually see him with a weapon in his hand? Did you ever actually him cause any physical injury to anyone that night? I saw him attempt to do it on a couple occasions, but I never saw him . That was not my question. Mr. Boucher, did you ever excuse me? It was my impression that he was answering your question. You'd agree with me. Cross examination. Pardon me? It's not cross examination. You supposed to have fast open-ended questions? He was answering. I , I, it was my impression that the witness had not completed his answer. I apologize. I will . I'll try to stop , uh, jumping in a little too soon, Mr. Bosch . Um, uh ,

Speaker 1:

Oh my goodness. It's just like so painful prosecutor says again, you never saw him actually punch anybody or assault anybody or slap anybody or any of those things, right? He's doing his same list thing. His laundry list . Bazooka, no machete, no weed whacker. No, no. He didn't have a lawn mower or a baseball bat or, you know, a beluga whale. None of those things relax . He didn't do any of those things. All irrelevant to the equation has nothing to do with anything. Somebody can walk right up to you, not do anything at all and then become violent. And then self-defense comes into play. You don't have to be selfish . You don't have to be violent for, you know , 7.7 minutes before self-defense triggers. You don't have to punch four people in the head before somebody can shoot you. If you're the fifth person who's going to get punched, it doesn't work like that. I don't know what he's talking about, but he's just trying to show, cause he's got no other arguments to make. He's just trying to show that all of these people were sort of jumping the conclude , jumping the gun on Rosenbaum . They were presuming without any merit that he was a threat because he has to be a threat in order for you to use self-defense you can't shoot somebody and claim self-defense if there's not a legitimate, reasonable threat. So all that that Mr. Binger is trying to do here is trying to show, trying to get these witnesses to say, no, I didn't see him swing a punch at somebody forehead, but I saw him chasing him around the car. After the fact, we just heard that from McGuinness . So this prosecutor, you know, I don't, I honestly don't know what he's , um , what he's trying to accomplish here. I think he thinks that he's accomplishing something, but I don't think it's landing the way that he thinks it is. All of these witnesses seem to be very empathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse, even though it's true. They didn't see any of these actual physical OBS . Yes, it's true. We didn't see him with a knife or a gun or a bazooka. Got it. We also didn't see him punch or kick or meme . All true. Factually, mostly irrelevant here because we did see a bunch of the other stuff that does matter, but he's got nothing else to talk about. So he's just grasping , uh , let's see. This is where he's talking about. Did you have any personal interactions with Rosenbaum and if so, what happened? And here, here it is. It just gets worse and worse. I can't even believe it. The prosecutor is going to get his own witness to testify that Rosenbalm actually verbally threatened Rittenhouse and bulge with death. Here it is.

Speaker 4:

Did you personally have any interactions with Mr. Rosenbaum?

Speaker 7:

I got between him and Colette at one point, and then he threatened me and the defendant. What

Speaker 4:

The time you described where you and you got in between him and Dustin collect between Mr. Rosenbaum and Dustin collect, was the defendant present for that

Speaker 7:

Immediately proceeded him, threatening me in calorie and house. Yeah .

Speaker 4:

So was the defendant present for that? Yes.

Speaker 7:

Tell us about that. Um, Colette had stopped him from putting something, starting something on fire. There's a video of it. And , um, Dustin Colette said something to the effect of around and find out. And I stepped in and told everybody, Hey , chill out, calm down, and stopped doing that. I turned and had an exchange with one of the protestors and I kind of explained to that protest or, Hey, you know, I get it. I get what you're trying to do, but like, not this. And when I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face, yelling and screaming. And I would say , do back up just chill. I don't know what your problem is. And he goes, you know, I catching you guys alone tonight. I'm going to kill you

Speaker 4:

When you said that to you. Correct. Did he say that to the defendant

Speaker 7:

As well? The defendant was there, so yes. Yes .

Speaker 1:

Oh my gosh. What ? Alright , so, you know, look, the jury just heard that and this guy has now making himself out to be like the only adult there, like only adult in the entire room and says specifically there's video of that. I went up there and he was trying to set something on fire. I think he's talking about Rosenbaum don't know specifically if he was or not think he was Rosenbalm was trying to set something on fire. We go up and stop it. Protestors are in the area. Everybody's in each other's face. You got a big guy like this. He comes in, he says, everybody chill out, calm down, relax. We're not torturing the rest of the city here. The only person, the only adult in the room Rosenbaum directly threatens him and Rittenhouse you standing right next to him and says, I'm going to kill you. So I don't know what other witnesses, you know , they can, they can bring out here that are going repair that damage, frankly. It's a direct threat. Now what they're going to try to do obviously is try to, is to try to separate this in time. How long ago was the death threat relative to when the shooting took place, but good Lord. If Rittenhouse is fleeing a person who had previously made a direct threat, if I catch you again tonight, I'm going to kill you. And then when Rosenbalm doesn't fact catch up with Kyle later in the night does chase him. You kind of got two things going on there don't you, you've got a mental state which shows somebody wanting to attack and harm somebody else. He said it out loud. He communicated his intent. And then he took physical actions to support that later on to X right there. And when you talk about criminal law, you talk about men's, re-enact this race. You kind of need both those components for many criminal cases. Sounds like you got both of them right there. There's a little bit of a time distance, some separation between the two, presumably between the time that Rosenbaum said that. And between the time that he was actually killed, but he said it, he indicated through his words that he intended to do something harmful to Rittenhouse saw him an hour later, two hours later, or two minutes later. I don't know. But shortly thereafter chasing him down the road, Rittenhouse responded. He had plenty of context there. So, all right. So now what we have is the government's witness again, confirming for us that Rosenbalm was the provocateur was the person who actually instigated. It made direct threats to this nice guy here who just met Kyle Rittenhouse that morning. Doesn't know him from anybody, met him that day. And was there keeping the peace? He didn't shoot and kill anybody. It sounds like a very reasonable guy to me. He gets called in to break the thing up and Rosenbaum makes a direct threat. Government, puts them on the stand, tells that to the jury morons. All right , so we have one final , uh, I think clip here from being her then got several others, but we got Rosenbalm here is now the, the topic of the conversation. Even the protesters were upset with Rosenbaum .

Speaker 4:

You had an interaction with Mr. Rosenbaum? Yes. Was that at the 59th street location? Yes. After that, did you have any other interactions with him that night?

Speaker 7:

Um, we encountered him hit and miss throughout the night, but he never like approached us again that I saw. And he tried to engage with ,

Speaker 4:

But you saw him around? Yes. Okay. Um, what were your impressions of him when you saw him in those other times?

Speaker 7:

Nah , he was in the middle of them trying to light things on fire, smashing anything he could. Um, in general he was just being aggressive to the other guys down at the ultimate. Um, the protesters were getting pretty upset with him being around. Um, they were very quick to let us know throughout the night. Hey, that guy's not with us, that guy's not with us. Don't be mad at us. And like, Hey, we get it. We already dealt with him before. And that was just the general vibe from him throughout the night.

Speaker 1:

All right , there you go again again yet. Again, never. They never approached them. He'd approached us. He was always out there being aggressive, lighting things on fire. Even the protestor said , look, this guy's not with us. Okay. This guy's trouble. So even if they called in protestors as additional witnesses, what are they going to say? Rosenbaum was an angel. No, they're not going to say that. Now couple clips here that , uh , the prosecution was, you know , very excited about. They , uh, did the same thing that they did to McInnis . They brought the witness up and then they beat them over the head with his own lies and his own , uh, miss Ms . Statements, which is, you know, something they could have done on cross. If they thought that these were bad witnesses and they could have, if they could prove their case with other people, well , they probably would have called them, but they , they haven't called them yet. Maybe they will they'll know who it's going to be, but unless it is , uh , overwhelming and it's consistent in a way that rebuts their first witnesses, I don't think it's going to be particularly effective. So again, binger comes out and he's going to go just like he did with McGuinness . He's going to come out here to balk and say, oh, you're a liar too. Aren't you? In fact, you lied directly to the media. When they came up and asked you about your name, didn't you eat

Speaker 4:

This location and spoke to some individuals who were from the media. Is that fair to say,

Speaker 7:

We kind of get ambushed by them . Well,

Speaker 4:

Make it sound like they were trying to attack you. They came up and

Speaker 7:

They came about nowhere and we weren't expecting

Speaker 4:

Them. When you say we, who was with

Speaker 7:

You , uh, Jason and Cal skews are with me.

Speaker 4:

When they asked, when these folks asked you your name, what did you tell them ?

Speaker 7:

I gave him a false name of Thomas Craig . Why did you do that? To protect my identity so that I could get out of there and figure out what was going on.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So, so you lied, you lied to the media. Oh my goodness. So I guess, I guess what's the point of that, I guess, is this guy not credible? Is he a liar? Is he trying to cover for Kyle Rittenhouse? Well, that's where the prosecutor takes this. He says, yeah. In fact, when the media asks you to identify who Rittenhouse was, you lied to them. You didn't even tell them that you knew him. And you did didn't you liar, here's binger.

Speaker 4:

There were folks there that showed you video of what had happened that night. Yes. In those view screens, were you able to see the defendant?

Speaker 7:

One of the live streamers did

Speaker 4:

Show me a picture of the defendant when he was laying on the ground being struck on the head. And I believe when he fired his weapon from that, were you able to identify that that was someone that you had been with? Yes . That evening. Did you admit that to them? No. In fact, when they confronted you on it and accused you of knowing exactly who that was, you lied to them and told them you did not correct? Correct. And when I discuss this with you, you gave me the explanation that because you were concerned for your safety at that time. Um , yeah, we were surrounded by several people and there were groups of the milling around us as well.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So it's just really bizarre that the prosecutor is going this direction. It's almost like he's recognizing that the testimony is not going the way that he wants it to go, which is bizarre because it's his witness and he should have already interviewed these people. They're his witnesses. So he should know what they're going to say before he puts them on the stand. So it's almost like he's doing this like last minute ditch effort, like, oh, but you're a liar on top of there on top of everything that you just said, you're also a liar. It sounds like you're a liar too, because what else is he trying to get out of that line of questioning? What does he want to get Baltz to admit what data can he get from this line of questioning? That's going to be useful to the jury that he lied about his name and about identifying Rittenhouse. What does , how does that help his case at all? It doesn't, it has nothing to do with what Rittenhouse did. So it sounds like to me, it feels like the only real reason that you would bring this up is because you want to sort of wreck your witness because this guy just came out and said, Rosenbaum was aggressive. Rosenbaum was the person who was instigating. It Rosenbalm was the person who made direct threats to me, the witness testifying here today and Rittenhouse who was standing right next to me that he was actually going to kill us. And so the prosecutor doesn't like how that testimony sounds, even though it came out of his own witness in his case in chief. So then he just comes out and just says, okay, well, I guess I'm just gonna call you a liar. Now you lied about your name. You lied about knowing Kyle. So I guess you're just a big fat liar. And so maybe we should just disregard all of your, the rest of your testimony today. That wrecked my case, even though I shouldn't have called you, but I did. So it doesn't make any sense to me at all about why, you know, why they are thinking, this is a good strategy. Even if they bring out five other witnesses who come out and say, Rosenbaum was an angel, Rittenhouse was a monster, right? And Rittenhouse was a murderer. It directly opposes their own government, their own witnesses. And one of whom is a victim in their own case who came out here and got into it with the prosecutor over falling versus lunging disaster of a day. We have a little bit of cross examination . You can see that Mark Richards doesn't even get out of his chair because the testimony was so favorable to him. It might as well have been his own witness. Here is Richard's today. Cross-examining ballsy .

Speaker 3:

You and my client were present when Mr. Rosenbaum threatened you and Kyle, correct? Correct. And he specifically said if he got either of you alone, he would expletive kill you. That's correct. Any doubt about that? No doubt about that. Told the FBI that yes. And that was right after , um, I'm going to get his name wrong. Tustin had put out dumpster fire, correct?

Speaker 7:

It's about 20 to 30 minutes before we headed south and the shooting started.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So there you go. We got one more question. Rosenbalm was a hyper aggressive individual. So two things, the only thing that, that , uh, Mark Richards is doing here on cross is just making sure that those bad statements that came out during the government's case, just sting a little bit further. He's just going to take that knife and just, just twist it just a little bit. Oh, being her asked you about , um , Rosenbalm threatening you, and you said that he said he was going to effing kill you. Can we, can you, can you confirm that for me again? Any doubt about that, that he said that no doubt at all. And he said, what? F-ing kill you. Oh. And he said that to you and Rittenhouse was right. The SEO. Okay. Perfect. Just want to make sure one more time. Can you confirm that? Got it. Thank you for writing that down. And he's going to do it again. Let's twist this just one more time. You mentioned that Rosenbalm was hyper-aggressive . Can you just say that again for the jury? If you could I'd appreciate it. If you'd say it about 35 more times, it's very useful to me. Here's how that goes here. That one is all right. Well, that's not playing for whatever reason. And so let me go through. So Mark Richards came out and did that again. He said the same thing. Yes. It's all true. Rosenbalm is hyper aggressive . He's a jerk. Everything's bad. So then we get the redirect again, binger supposed to come out and clean this all up for us because this guy's testimony was detrimental to their case. And here's what he says again, calling him just a liar. His own witness. Wild .

Speaker 7:

No, No. They just never asked those questions about that ,

Speaker 3:

Correct me if I'm wrong. But when the FBI talks to you, they don't write out a statement for you, let you review it for accuracy. Completeness, do they? No . They just ask you questions. They show up to your house on nouns. You answer the questions they leave and they write down what they think is important. That is correct. I have nothing further.

Speaker 1:

All right. So, so my last, my last Glip , before that one wasn't working. So binger comes out, you're a liar. You didn't know it was in the plastic bag at all. Did you know ? I didn't know what it was. None of that's true. You said it was these other things. It wasn't none of that's true. So you're a liar, isn't it? Are you? Yeah, I guess so Richard's comes back out and says , uh, did the FBI, did they like send you a copy of their report and like, say, Hey, do you have any additions or corrections? Uh , anything you'd like to change in this report before they drafted it? And he says, no, of course they didn't. And he said, okay, that's what I thought. So , uh, Mr. Binger, yeah. Reports changed because this guy fills out the details. It was an initial report, not even anything worth mentioning. And so those were great. Uh, clips came out today. Of course, Ryan bulge just wrecking the prosecution's case, their witness, everything that he said today was largely defensive of Kyle Rittenhouse. And so let's see what you have to say about this over from our [email protected] A lot of questions here today. Ghost gunner says if I had a nickel for each time, I heard a couple more questions. Then the next segments I would have a lawyer's salary started already. Sorry about that. We got a lot of questions here today. It's a live show. See , rose says great entertaining show again, Rob, thanks for all this work for us. Have a good night. Take care there. See rose. Thanks for being here. Monster one says, do you know the standard for self-defense and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? They have equal four standard, which means you cannot exert more force than your attacker. They use fists . You can't stab. If they stab you, you can't shoot at et cetera . No, I don't know what it is. I think that you could probably glean it from , um , the jury instructions, but I just don't know what it is. Uh , off offhand monster one says in response to the people who keep saying they are saving some smoking gun. No, I think this is the best they've got. Seems like a lot of people drank the mainstream media. Kool-Aid it's a , it's a terrible case. They don't have a good case. This is it . This is it. And they shouldn't have even charged it. Thunder seven says so much for the woke gender fluid bowl. If Kyle was a 17 year old goat girl, would she have been arrested? Let alone thrown in jail for months. If Kyle was trans, would they be erecting a statute in his or her honor? But because he's a white male, he's not allowed to defend his life. Screw the lunatic left. We've had enough. And if Kyle is not acquitted could be trouble out there, peaceful trouble. We see we have another one from three girls . He says, how many people signed up for the military during world war one, world war two and lied about their ages. How many stood up a way on ships to get to the fight? There are tons of people in the past that lied about their age. There's the changing of his age. Seem a bit irrelevant to you. I mean, it does, to me, it is technically a part of the case, but not really relevant to the homicides, teenagers, Flint rules all the time. People go out, even if there are curfews. Yeah. Even Washington did couldn't binger look at boss's testimony and figure what is Kyle state of mind after all Kyle said, I love you too, man . That definitely goes to Kyle state of mind. Doesn't this provide binger what he was trying to prove with all the hearsay video. Now we have somebody who is physically in person telling binger what Kyle state of mind was. Yeah, I see what you're getting at there. Uh, three girls . What you're trying to do though, is hold Thomas binger to a standard that , um, isn't actually a fair standard. It was sort of a manipulation of the hearsay exclusions. He was trying to use present sense impressions and excited utterances to get in somebody else's opinion about Kyle written. House's state of mind, not the person, not to the declarant, the person saying it. In other words, the person recording the video. We can use it for their state of mind, but he doesn't know what Kyle Rittenhouse, his state of mind is. So what does his statement have to do with that? Being her was being disingenuous there, or he just doesn't know what the hearsay rules are. Could have been either. One of those Kincaid says there it is. The prosecution may have a chance with the jury. Kyle lied and took on too much and his actions caused it all. Oh, wait, what search do you need to burn stuff down, intimidate and act a fool Kyle's actions and video clips suggest a kid responsible well aware of the dangers and damage he could cause yes, the decision to be there was high risk unreasonable though. What are the odds of a well-balanced young man not taking risks to protect his friends and stomping ground. Do you think the jury will fall for this crap? Um, Danzig is short and I'm glad some people in the crowd helped to contain that pervy violent wound. That is from Kinkaid. It's a good comment there. I don't think the jury is going to buy it. Short answer on that. Don't think so, former Leo says I was thinking about taking a road trip and maybe incorporating a crime spree during my trip. All right. Well keep my number handy there. My question is can I submit a reservation request to have binger be the prosecutor just in case the FBI is still monitoring this forum. This is sarcasm. Don't annoy Garland and start an investigation. That's from former LEL . Who's uh, yeah, that'd be you . You have a good shot at an acquittal. If Thomas binger was your prosecutor, three girlies says you don't need to hit somebody in order to be aggressive. Look at road rage, people flip each other off. They drive a radically. Maybe they don't care or get out of the car . Doesn't mean that they're not aggressive or aggravated being here has given me a headache. I don't know what he's smoking. It's like you little fire. It's like you lit fire on his poop and sniffing the fumes. Oh, that sounds disgusting. It's a bag of poop. He called, he called the bag poop monster. One says in the worlds of mortal combat fatality, flawless victory king, Kate says, forget everything I said, it's likely done now. LOL. Wow . Chop says, in your opinion, do Kyle's lawyers even need to present a defense? So this is a great question actually. And uh , somebody mentioned this earlier and I forgot to comment on it, but at the conclusion of the government's case, if they haven't presented any evidence like enough evidence to support the causes, you can file a motion for basically it's called the directed verdict, a judge emotion of acquittal, at least here in Arizona. Let's see if you can find , uh, let me see if there's an article about this. Yeah. Okay. So there is it's right here on , uh, on Nolo. So there's all sorts of different motions, judgment for acquittal. Let's see if , uh , Nolo has something here about what this means. A motion for a judgment of acquittal rest in the claim that the evidence at trial was insufficient for a conviction. In other words, the defendant argues that no reasonable jury could possibly find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So at the conclusion of the case, that's exactly what this is. It's a motion, it's a motion for a judgment of acquittal. And it happens when the government finishes and you say, okay, look, judge, even if we didn't present a case at all, and you just heard what was presented today, no reasonable jury anywhere could possibly convict our client on that because they didn't hit the elements. Like , like a common example of this would be like in a case that involved , um, you know, aggravated assault that led to an injury, right? Like a serious felony. It would be like if you went into trial and you talked about everything, you talked about all of the , uh , relationships and all of this stuff, but you never talked about the injuries in a trial, talked about everything. Yeah. He punched her. It was really hard, hard punch, really hard, hit her right in the face. All of that. Okay. It's fine. All well. And good could be just a regular assault, but for an aggravated assault, you need some sort of additional injury. You need damage some really hard damage in there. And so if you present all of your evidence in a trial, but not that one box, well, you missed it government. Sorry. Can't do that one example that I've talked about here , uh , before it was a criminal , uh , traffic case where the police officer trial came in, whole thing, went down, officer came in and talked all about everything that happened. Your client did this and he was speeding and he was weaving in and out and he was reckless and all blah, blah, blah. Okay, fine. All that was fine, but they never actually identified my clients . They were talking about somebody with my client's name, sounded like they were talking about my clients. But in the course of this trial, they never actually identified him. They never said that he was sitting in the courtroom that , uh, the officer checked his ID, that the , that the, the ID matched the driver in the car, the driver in the car, his seat seated here in the courtroom. None of that. And so at the conclusion of their case, that's fine. I don't care what the hell they talked about. They could talk about somebody speeding every which way, but it has nothing to do with my clients. I don't know who the hell they were talking about. So the judge says, yeah, you're absolutely right. Judgment of acquittal. Because even at the conclusion of, even if they presented everything humanly possible, they still can't legally convict you. The judge can toss the case out there. So, you know , I'm not sure that that's going to happen here because I don't think the judge is going to want to take it out of their hands. And there probably is enough to give it to the jury. But yeah, it's a good question. And it might be something, I think you're certainly going to see it. You are going to see Mark Richards and his team move at the conclusion of the case for a judgment of acquittal. It's sort of just formality. And I don't think the judge is going to grant it, but maybe former Leo says, don't forget about the gunshot that was fired behind Kyle who couldn't know who fired possibly by the chaser about one second before Kyle defended himself. Yeah, that was [inaudible] gunshot monster. One says, I wonder if people are getting it yet. The clearest case of self-defense I've ever seen. We've been saying this stuff for almost a year. Can't even count how many times I've had conversations with people who just couldn't check their bias. I know monster one. That's why I hear you. Yeah. I hear you. I get it. Totally appreciate you being here. Ghost gunner says charge Rosenbalm with attempted murder. Oh wait. You can't. Because that pedophiles six feet under what's the point of this prosecution. This has to be the most cut and dry criminal case I've ever invested in. I'm not a lawyer. So I only catch the interesting ones being her is grasping at straws. It's almost comical lying to the media. What a shame also call me Hugh. Mungus good riddance. Rosenbalm F around. Find out, found out he did that's from ghost gunner. I think a lot of jurors are gonna agree with you on that monster. One says it was this guy under oath. When he talked to the media, not like you've got an obligation. No. Who cares if you lied, Rob? I like the normal time. Better. 6:00 PM central. Yeah. I know I'm in a conference today. I'm in a conference today and all day tomorrow. And we don't get out until about 5, 5, 15 Arizona time. So I've got to do it later. Tos says , by showing the witnesses as liars, the prosecution can use the purpose of lying as Kyle being a part of this dishonesty and therefore lying about self-defense and having subconscious desire for conflict and shooting a person that's very clever there tos very convoluted concoction you have there. And I like it. If you're not a lawyer, maybe you should go to law school and become a prosecutor. You'll fit right in there in Kenosha. We have. And I say that lovingly, you know, that , uh , tremendous says I have found so much more faith in humanity from this case. People like Kyle and Baltar going around trying to help the injured. I don't care what certifications. They had. People going around with fire extinguishers, trying to put out fires, McGuinness , applying pressure to Rosenbaum's womb, helping get him to the hospital, Baldwin , his friend, trying to treat Huber and grows Kreutz Baltz and friends, trying to look out for Kyle and the other younger people at car sense. A lot of people just trying to help in any way. They can kind of like the good guys in the whole thing. Weren't they, nobody likes see the good guys go down. Uh, Greg says, Greg Murat says unrelated, but are you following the Julius Jones death row case? If you are, what are your general thoughts on it? Uh, so no, I am not. I'm not familiar with this one. Let me do a quick Google on it. American football, running back, Dallas Cowboys on death row in Oklahoma. So I am not a supporter of the death penalty. Uh, I've been pretty consistent about that, but I do not know much about this, Greg. I apologize. I will take a look at it. I've got it open. And so when I , uh, when I'm doing some editing, I typically will read the stuff that comes in through recommendations . So thank you for that. But yeah, I, you know, I'm not a fan of the death penalty. I don't think that it is , um , the right policy decision for a whole slew of reasons, but outside the scope of the show today. But I'll take a look at that, Greg. Thanks for sending it. But let's see, Perry Mason says, when will Natalie's dirty diaper be full? It's a good question. I think yesterday we learned that Nadler's diaper was up to like 33 pounds. I mean, it's like getting bigger every day. It's kind of got its own gravity. Now it's going to be pulling in, you know, fun bags, Pelosi in there into the gravity. It's going to be just, it's going to make Washington DC even more stinky than it is currently. Natalie's dirty diaper. Oh God, somebody changed him. Rob's racist. Lamp is here. Oh, the lamp that didn't just go out Rob's was your sign falling or was it reaching? It's a good question. And first of all, I don't know. Maybe you should go back and get an interview of mine and then impeach me with it. And my lamp went off. Well, how the heck ? All right, Nancy, Pelosi's fun bag says, Rob I'll trade. You favors one more session of a house majority. Right ? So we're going to wrap it up here in a quick minute. Last one from locals. If the defense files a motion for lack of evidence and it gets denied, can they still present a defense? Yes. Great question. So it's mostly just a formality. You come through, you file it. You say judge, they presented their case. Even if they presented an amazing case, you still say this is nonsense. They didn't present any evidence. They can't even pass this. This motion judge says yes they did. Okay. So the answer is no, you present your case and you take it from there. So , uh , that's all going to , uh , continue on. I'm sure the trial was not going to be over on a judgment of acquittal from this judge. Although this judge, maybe I don't know. Let's see what came in over from YouTube before we wrap it up for the day we had a couple over here. Mutton chops got that one. Christopher says, agreed. Binger seems to be grasping for straws. Curious if that will change with different witnesses. I don't think so. I think it's just a bad case. Bad facts. See Reed says hi, Rodney thinks the prosecution has something huge to convict. This junk is just to get to the defense to underestimate. John Dick says, seems like the prosecutor is trying to make the case, make a case that Rittenhouse knowing the 24th was so chaotic had no other reason to be in Kenosha other than to instigate. Therefore there was no self-defense. I think you're exactly right. Jonathan . That that's, that was exactly what they wanted to do. And , uh, my Chrome just crashed. I believe that we're still recording. We're still broadcasting. So let me open up all my screens again. Can somebody just confirm for me in the , uh , locals chat that we're still broadcasting alive and well so that , uh , I can continue on. And I think that we're still good. All right, Don, that says that you can see me very cool. All right . So I open up all my stuff. All right , Jonathan Dix , we got that. Yeah. I think you're exactly right. That , uh, it , it was, the government was trying to show their written house was the instigator. If that happens, you lose the right to suddenly turn around and claim self-defense. I don't think that they're gonna be able to make that case though. Uh, Bristol says, how did the Minsky avoid charges? And as an accessory considering you fired the shot that caused this, isn't it akin to yelling fire in a theater? So sort of, I think that, that certainly he could probably be charged under a statute, like, you know , discharging a weapon. I'm sure there's some sort of a criminal charge for that on the books there. I don't know what it is, but they could. But remember, as what we talked about, the government has discretion in who they charge and who they don't charge. And so here, they just made a decision to go ahead and charge Rittenhouse, probably because they want to use theoretically Zemlinsky as, as potentially a witness, we don't know, but you have to choose. You can't charge everybody in a crime because you need other people to testify against certain people. And if you charge everybody, what happens is everybody decides I'm going to invoke my right to remain silent and nobody talks and you can't convict anybody. So you have to sort of pick and choose to some degree. Brad Bower says, if Kyle was found innocent of the charges, can you still join the military hate to see the kids' dreams ruined over this? Uh , I would imagine, I would think so. You know, I think that they're probably going to be more concerned about a conviction, but I don't know , you know, I don't really know military how that might overlap. Thanks for the support there though. Brad, we've got John stern says we can analyze the prosecution and the defense all day, but it still comes down to the jury decision. How much can we really predict the outcome of the trial? It's a good question, John. I think that, you know, your , your rights to some degree there is, you know, maybe you look at it like a bell curve, you know, probably can guess, but that's it, it's kind of a guess. I think in this case, you know, everybody's ultimately shooting from the hip. I talk about it with jury selection. You know, you can only really know so much about a person. We don't know much about these people at all, but I think the facts of the case just lead a logical reasonable person to think that this is a pretty clear cut case of self-defense. And you can sort of jump from there in terms of coming to conclusions. That was from John stern. Thanks John. A couple more before we jump out, but naked gamer says that this decision is going to impact the rest of the country because the rest of the country is watching and we are generations into the information age. Yeah, I agree with that. But naked, I think that sort of in the court of public opinion and the minds of society, we are all going to look at this and it is going to cause a lot of , uh, a lot of perspectives to change one way or the other, right? There's a lot of people here who think that Kyle Rittenhouse went out there and shot people in cold blood. Probably gonna think that like that indefinitely, if he's acquitted, they're going to say a racist white kid got off with killing, you know, innocent people who were protesting for civil rights or whatever. And so who knows what that does, who knows if that sort of swings the pendulum, we get a bunch of, you know, Baytos out there screaming about gun laws. That might be the natural consequence of an acquittal. I don't know what is a conviction. Do you know that that sort of awakens an entirely different beast here of Americans that believe in the second amendment, believe in the preservation of your right to self-defense in the face of adversarial circumstances. And so that might have a whole different cascade of consequences. So you're absolutely right. But naked gamer. When I was talking about this, having minimal consequences that is legally in the court of law, practically speaking, in other words, Arizona, we don't have to change anything because of some case in Kenosha, but we do, if the Supreme court mandates a change, which is what I was getting at. But yeah, I mean, the reason why we are covering this case, so in depth is because of my interest in making sure that this case goes right, because I'm a criminal defense attorney, this is a cut and dry criminal defense case. This defendant is clearly innocent, even from the government's own testimony. It's like wild. So it better go the right way. I've got a lot , uh , sort of emotionally invested into this baby. Uh, Jacob has Superchat . It says listening to the trial today. I thought I was hearing the defense putting on its case with the witnesses. I think that a lot of people agree with you on that. It was a , it felt like that all day, Bianca says the attorneys talked about the girlfriend regarding opening arguments. Prosecutor wanted her to testify about the contents of the bag. Defense wanted to talk about reasons for the hospital. Judge will decide, oh, thank you for that, Bianca. Yeah. Sometimes I miss those little nuances when I'm scrubbing through, I'm looking for the big chunks that I can sort of pull out, but sometimes I do miss the nuance there. So I , uh, th th th the detail . So I appreciate that Angela B says Rosenbaum was released from a mental ward that morning after being suicidal, his woman rejected him. Maybe he just wanted Kyle to suicide him maybe, or somebody , right. Maybe, but that doesn't make it illegal to use self-defense to kill somebody who was threatening you. Right. I mean, he can do whatever he wants to. He did what he did. The question is not whether , uh, Rosenbalm was doing something that society thinks is justifiable or not. It's what Kyle Rittenhouse is a reasonable person was experiencing right then and there under those same circumstances and whether or not he was justified and reasonable to use self-defense so it's all relevant, but it doesn't. I just don't think it changes the equation all that much. I think it supports Kyle showing that this guy was unstable. He's not the caricature that binger was trying to portray him to be, he was not this just nice guy walking around, you know, saving children. George McNair says the apostles denied Christ also when they were in a bad place. That is true. Yeah . That is true. No doubt. Miles Braden with some super chat support also says thoughts on the January 4th deadline for the shot. So I saw that I saw a headline today, as I said, I was in a conference all day. And then I was sort of multitasking , scrubbing through the trial as I was listening in. And it was a sort of a field day, but I didn't see much other news of the day or spend really any time on Twitter, like I normally do. But I did see the Joe Biden came out. I think the OSHA rules are going into effect at some point. So we'll be talking about that. Uh , at some point January 4th, deadline for the shot, we'll see how that goes for him. We'll get back to some of the politics as soon as the Rittenhouse trial is over, but we've also got the Golin Maxwell trial. Arbery I think is starting a it's case in chief soon. So we've got a lot of justice news, but it's nice that there are some, there are some rules now being rolled out. So the other lawsuits challenging the mandates can start to fly looking forward to those as well. Karen Williams says, if worded well, can the defense make the case to end it yeah. On a judgment for acquittal and emotion for acquittal after the case in chief, I think they can. They probably will. And unless the testimony changes, they might be successful on that. So a very great questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com and of course the tremendous, tremendous support over on YouTube as well. Nancy Pelosi's fund bags here with a final question says, Hey, Rob, quick question about your zoom meetup . That's coming up are tops optional for Nancy Pelosi's fund bags. They're mandatory Nancy. So please come appropriately dressed three girls . He says the idea of Natalie's diaper being so full that it's falling down. And then all I can imagine is his butt crack. This is past my bedtime Natalie's diaper. Absolutely disgusting. It's true. It's the worst thing chairman of the board says, you know, I know this will sound crazy, unrealistic and foreign to reality, but in a perfect world, wouldn't this be how a trial would go? You put witnesses on the stand to tell the jury what they say. And if that means that the accused is innocent. So be it, of course, if those questions are asked and answered before the trial, the charges never get filed. So my question is, is the prosecuting attorney, the same guy that decided if they would charge Kyle in the first place? Is that how that works? You know, it depends sometimes yes. Sometimes no, in this small town, probably I think when I looked up the DA's office, actually I still have this tab open. Let's look here, chairman, you looked this up earlier because somebody was asking , uh , this was Mike gravely. This is the office of the district attorney. So here you can see here, this is their whole office. We've got 1, 2, 3, no , those 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, assistant DAS . And they're all assistant DAS . Typically the way that these offices are structured and you've got Mike gravely , who is the chief da office manager, victim witness coordinator. So you've got victim witness specialist in administrative assistance . It's a small office. It's small, right? Not big in Maricopa county. We've got, I don't know, a thousand employees, maybe at our district attorney's office or our county attorney's office, a thousand here, you're looking at multiple hundreds of prosecutors. And so in that structure, they have a sort of a lower level court called early disposition court. And you've got pre charging divisions and all sorts of different people who look at it before it works its way up into the official trial bureau, which is where it would end up in a case like this. However, here it's so small, they probably had a meeting and said, who wants to prosecute this case in binger? I was like, oh, I do. Oh, I do. I want to prosecute it , put me in charge of it. And that's why we have him in there trying to, you know, make his career on this thing, doing a pretty poor job of it at that. That's from chairman of the board. And I think we've got a cup one more over here. Sweet potato says, Rob, we need prayers for geo Mancy games. They are going to the ER because chemo is kicking their butt. Love the new Showtime. Hope it sticks. It's from sweet potato thoughts and prayers for geo Mancy games. You know, geo Mancy games is a , is going through a sickness here. And so if you have any additional bandwidth in those prayer muscles , send some out to geo Mancy games, sweet potato says, they're going to the ER, by the way, if you like to be on YouTube, geo Mancy games is on YouTube. That'd be another nice thing you could do for him. Go look up his channel geo Mancy games and give them a sub. Especially if you're interested in that type of content, you know, gaming is pretty fun. So go check that out. Now that my friends is it, we had one more super chat come in on YouTube. We've got Anthony Gardez says any idea of the fact that the mayor of Kenosha and a main detective being related creates a of interest. You know, so I haven't seen any of that. I haven't seen, I haven't really looked into the, I haven't really spent much time looking at anything that is sort of outside of the courtroom about a lot of this. If I can be honest about this, I know there was , um , some changes from Barnes and from the free Kyle team. I know there's been some talks about some of the , the alleged victims being assistant. DA's first time I'm hearing about this detective being related to mayor might look. I think that there , that a lot of that is probably true if I had to guess, okay, all of this stuff is , is political. This is a very small town. I know how things work in small towns, you know, Scottsdale is , is in Arizona, but it's kind of a small town relative to the greater Phoenix area. I know how things work in these places, all highly political. So I wouldn't see any, if all of that is a speculative and I had to gamble on it, I'd say probably true. Right? There's probably a lot of nonsense that goes on behind closed doors that you never hear about. So that was from Anthony. Gardez nice. Super chat there. Thank you for that. And that my friends is it for us for the day we went super deep on , uh , Greg Mirage just got your super chat. I'll take a look at that. Uh, and monster one says, yeah, in my hometown, there's only two prosecutors. So yeah, super small, super small towns , uh, that my friends is it for us for the day. I want to thank you so much for being a part of the show went super long today on the Rittenhouse stuff, 3 21. Whew . But there was a lot of good stuff to talk about. Want to remind you if you're a supporter [email protected] , we appreciate that big welcomes to G nonsense. We've got frappe bod in the house fleet Jay , welcome to the community. We got bad guy, 24 CC, very clever name, mind magician, C rose hyperspectral Erin Caroline all joined [email protected] We've got our monthly meetup that you heard us talk about a little bit earlier Saturday, November six, seven to 8:00 PM. Eastern time. If you want to join us, I'm going to post the registration link tonight, or first thing tomorrow, watching the watchers.locals.com. And now my friends is at , for us for the day we are going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow. We're going to do it at the same time tomorrow because I've got my conference all day. I'll be done about 5, 5, 15 or so, and then we'll be able to come in here and we'll, we'll close out the week with our final date of Rittenhouse . I'm also going to be keeping an eye out, looking around to see if I can connect with some of the other people who are covering the case. I'd love to connect with ricotta. I've been talking to Joe. Nierman good logic. And so we'll see if we can sort of know , reconnect maybe this weekend when , uh , there's some additional time for all of us to do that. So tomorrow it's going to be again, 6:00 PM, Arizona time. We're going to go live across all the different streams. So we'll be back, live on YouTube, be back, live across the board because it's a late show. And so , uh , I'll see you guys back here. Uh, 6:00 PM Arizona. Uh, that means it's. If it's 6:00 PM in Arizona, that means it's 7:00 PM mountain. Cause we're in Pacific still , right? It's not the seventh yet. We're still, it's not daylight savings , Arizona doesn't change. So I got to rethink this through every year, multiple times, 6:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM, mountain 8:00 PM. Central 9:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man, my friends, thanks so much for being a part of the show. If you're new here would love it. If you subscribe , we'd love a thumbs up before you get out of here would love it. If you check this [email protected], otherwise would love to see you back here tomorrow. 6:00 PM, Arizona time, 9:00 PM on the east coast for that one, Florida man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. My friends I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye .