Back in Our Time Machine to One Week Ago

Don’t worry. I won’t be doing this much. I’m almost caught up to the end of the actual trial.

Jeffrey Toobin: It seems like Kyle Rittenhouse has a 'plausible case of self defense' – HotAir

But point two is the more significant one coming from a professional legal analyst. “The good news for Kyle Rittenhouse is that he’s not on trial for being an idiot,” Toobin said. He continued, “He’s on trial for homicide and in that respect I mostly agree with Joey that this is a tough case for the prosecution because it does seem like he has a plausible case of self defense.” [emphasis added].

It’s good that he got his hands out of his pants long enough to figure that out.

Toobin isn’t the only analyst on CNN today arguing that things aren’t going well for the prosecution. After the judge in the case gave the prosecutor a tongue lashing today, analyst Paul Callan commented that “this prosecutor seems to have made an enemy of the judge.” Callan then explained the Wisconsin law that regulates “propensity evidence.”

The second half of this clip shows two more analysts reacting to that same moment. Civil Rights Attorney Areva Martin agrees that the prosecutor was “pushing the envelope.”

Now the Rittenhouse Judge Calls Out the Media

He’s just not winning any friends on the left.

“So, anything that undermines public confidence in what happens here is very important,” Schroeder continued. “It’s important for this town. It’s important for this country to have people have confidence in the result of this trial — whatever it is. And I don’t care what it is.”

The media, he said, are “saying things that are totally bizarre.” CNN’s Toobin and “another attorney” on the network discussed the “uncommunicated threat rule,” an “ancient rule of our law,” the judge outlined, the report said.

“This was on CNN — Jeffrey Toobin and another attorney there … A comment was made that the ruling was incomprehensible,” the Schroeder explained. “And I think they obviously are not familiar with this rule. That’s our law. That’s the law in the Jackson case; it’s the law in the case of the United States against Craig A. Smith, which is 230 federal second 300, a Seventh Circuit case from 2000. This is admissible evidence.”

Basically: media, spend less time talking, more time listening. You might learn something and then be able to repeat it correctly.