"Cable news" covers the Rittenhouse trial!


The cherry-picking is general: As of Tuesday night, we hadn't been following the Rittenhouse trial.

That night, we were surprised to hear that the trial was going poorly for the prosecution. More specifically, we were surprised to hear that said on CNN, first by reporter Sara Sidner, then by guest analyst Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

Speaking with CNN's Erin Burnett, Sidner said that the videotape from the night in question was turning out to be "the defense's best evidence." Most strikingly, Sidner also said this:

"At times, the prosecution witnesses did as much for the defense as they did for the prosecution."

Later, Burnett threw to Rawlings-Blake, a former defense attorney and the former mayor of Baltimore. Rawlings-Blake offered this:

RAWLINGS-BLAKE (11/9/21): I think going into this case, we were given the impression that the prosecution's case was a lot stronger than it is, as we've seen. You should never be in the position as a prosecutor that your best evidence, your best witness, that video, is offering to the jury reasonable doubt. 

Sidner and Rawlings-Blake agreed. The videotape was helping the defense—but so was the testimony by the prosecution's witnesses!

We were surprised to hear this on CNN, a "cable news" channel now strongly inclined to advance the Storylines which are preferred by our own blue tribe. 

We might have expected to hear this on Fox. But this was CNN!

What will the jury end up deciding? We have no idea. 

For ourselves, we'd be disinclined to convict, though we haven't seen all the testimony. Also this:

As a general matter, we're disinclined to hope and pray that people, even teen-aged people, will get frog-marched to jail.

How will the jury rule? We have no idea. We can offer this assessment of the cable news coverage in the past few days:

The cherry-picking has been general. Beyond that, so has the ugliness of many tribunes within our own liberal tribe.

We hadn't been following the trial until we heard those surprising assessments. We've seen a lot of the "coverage" since then. 

In our view, the ugliest, most repulsive conduct has come from people who play the game On Our Own Liberal Side. On balance, we'd have to say that the cherry-picking and the ugliness have been worse Over Here.

In our view, the behavior has been ugly and bad, especially on CNN and on Morning Joe. That said, we also watched Tucker Carlson on Tuesday night. Below, you see a few examples of the bullshit we've seen: 

Later that same night: Tucker Carlson

How bad were things for the prosecution? That same Tuesday night, we watched a lengthy presentation by Tucker Carlson.

We hadn't watched his program in months. But it has become painful to watch the cable stars on MSNBC and CNN. 

For whatever reason, we flipped over—and we're glad we did. We were treated to extensive video footage from the trial—but also to absurd illogic from the cable star Carlson himself.

Let's start with the footage:

Is it possible that the jury will agree with Rittenhouse's plea of self-defense? We don't know what's going to happen, but below, you see part of the testimony by one of the prosecution witnesses.

The witness in question is Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, one of the three people Rittenhouse shot that night. He was one of the prosecution witnesses to whom Sidner and Rawlings-Blake had referred as they spoke with Burnett.

Grosskreutz was also armed, and was also out in the streets, late on the night in question. As we saw on Carlson's show, here's part of the way his testimony went that day under questioning by defense attorney Corey Chirafisi:

CHIRAFISI (11/9/21): That’s a photo of you, yes?


CHIRAFISI: That is Mr. Rittenhouse? 


CHIRAFISI: Now, you would agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, correct? 



CHIRAFISI: Okay. So, when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right? 


CHIRAFISI: It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun—now your hands down, pointed at him—that he fired, right? 


Oof. That was part of the testimony to which Sidner and Rawlings-Blake had referred. In that testimony, Grosskreutz said that Rittenhouse hadn't fired at him until he himself advanced on the lad and pointed his own gun at him.

It was easy to see why that testimony would be helpful for the defense. Carlson aired other footage from that day's testimony which cut in the defendant's favor.

That said, you'll rarely see a presentation on Carlson's program in which information or evidence isn't quickly subsumed by Carlson's overstatements and illogic. After playing the tape of what Grosskreutz said, Carlson excitedly offered this:

CHIRAFISI: It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun—now your hands down, pointed at him—that he fired, right? 


[End of videotape]

CARLSON: So that's kind of it right there, that's pretty much the end of the trial. Because when someone runs up and points a loaded gun in your face, you are allowed to shoot that person. That is called self-defense. That's the rule. It has been the rule throughout human history, in every society on Earth since people lived in caves. 

"That's pretty much the end of the trial?" You can't get dumber than that.

In fact, Grosskreutz was the third person Rittenhouse shot that night. Even if jurors decide that Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz in self-defense, that has nothing to do with charges stemming from the first two people Rittenhouse shot, each of whom was killed.

We saw a lot of instructive footage on Carlson's show that night. Along with that, the deluge—Carlson's inevitable gong-show, an analysis which would be quite misleading for viewers who trust the star.

Thursday evening: Anderson Cooper

In the next few days, we saw performances on CNN and Morning Joe which struck us as ugly, evil, massively cherry-picked, destructive, demeaning, disgraceful.

We thought the behavior by Joe Scarborough and Claire McCaskill was little short of a disgrace. In our view, Professor Brooks' musings about "the old-fashioned slave patrols" only gets more tragic, and less sane, the further along he goes.

In our view, the spinning and dissembling were general, as was the bloodlust put on display by the various millionaires. Their behavior in these past few days has been an anthropology lesson and an indictment of our tribe.

For today, we'll only note what happened on Anderson Cooper's show. "Coop" had scored an interview with Grosskreutz himself. What happened was remarkable.

All in all, Grosskreutz has established himself as the Aaron Rodgers of the Rittenhouse trial. After delivering the sworn testimony we've posted above, he went on Thursday's Good Morning America and basically took it all back:

STRAHAN (11/11/21): Here you're allowed to say whatever you feel like you need to say. So you're saying that you actually didn't—you weren't pointing your gun at him. Is that what you're saying?

GROSSKREUTZ: That's absolutely what I'm saying, yes.

Behaving like the apocryphal potted plant, Michael Strahan let that flip-flop go. Or was it simply edited that way? To watch the interview, click here.

That night, Anderson Cooper interviewed Grosskreutz and pretended to challenge him on this instant self-contradiction.

You can check the transcript here. We'd say it's fairly obvious that Aaron Rodgers is writing Grosskreutz's stuff—and that people like Cooper are inclined to let this sort of thing go.

(Question: Has anybody told the judge about what Grosskreutz has been saying?)

We humans never were "the rational animal," the way we've always said. That basic fact has been clearly established during this long, stupid week.

We think McCaskill and Scarborough have been indecent, deranged. We think the Harvard professor behaved much as you might expect. 

Do we hear fire bells in the night? Is that the source of our fears?

We're afraid that voters all over the country can See Us As We Are. We think Cuomo and Lemon should be off the air, but mainly we wonder if a large continental nation like ours can survive a plague of "journalistic" locusts producing an epistemic Babel of this ever-devolving type.

We can see The Others when they behave in these ways, as they constantly do. As has always been true with our species' tribes, it seems that we can't see ourselves!

Full disclosure: We watched Hannity discuss the trial last night. 

He was much less ridiculous than the always ridiculous Carlson was. In our view, he was much more informative than the gruesome dissemblers and cherry-pickers so widely observed Over Here.


  1. "We were surprised to hear this on CNN, a "cable news" channel now strongly inclined to advance the Storylines which are preferred by our own blue tribe."

    This should raise doubts about the correctness of Somerby's previous characterization of cable news and the extent to which it recites scripted narratives.

  2. "For ourselves, we'd be disinclined to convict, though we haven't seen all the testimony."

    When you have a disinclination without having heard all of the testimony, that is called bias. It generally precludes someone from jury service since you are not supposed to make up your mind without hearing all of the testimony.

    It doesn't surprise me that Somerby's "disinclination" aligns with conservative views.

    1. Yeah, that just makes so much sense.

      Somerby’s inclination is toward the standard of “reasonable doubt”, yet HE has a political bias because anonymices say that is not aligned with…wait for it…liberals…

      No one could make them up…

    2. He didn't say that. He said his inclination is not to convict because he doesn't like people to go to jail. It has nothing to do with the testimony, much less reasonable doubt.

    3. How do you get that out of this statement?

      “ As a general matter, we're disinclined to hope and pray that people, even teen-aged people, will get frog-marched to jail.”

    4. Why do all these racists keep calling themselves "conservatives"?


    5. Why do some anonymices post anonymously?

      Because they’d otherwise embarrass themselves.

    6. Cecilia, I have always been impressed with several aspects of your posts here. We often disagree politically, but what you say is always clear, and at least you don’t hide behind being anonymous.

      Is it really so hard for you fake-nameless mofos to come up with a pseudonym, just so readers can tell which particular idiot stick is jabbering on at any particular point in time? Cecilia nails it above. You’re scared to do it precisely because you could then be directly (though still anonymously, for those who somehow miss that simple fact) linked to the nonsense you blather. Scared of your own shadows much? Ironically, yes you are, though you seemingly don’t sense that you have long since become shadows of your best selves, simply by dint of your own self-indulgent rhetorical cowardice.

  3. "In that testimony, Grosskreutz said that Rittenhouse hadn't fired at him until he himself advanced on the lad and pointed his own gun at him."

    At this point, Rittenhouse had already killed one person. Grosskreutz was one of several people who were trying to stop Rittenhouse, to prevent him from shooting more people. Grosskreutz, at that point, had not shot anyone, so there was no reason to assume he was any danger, any more than the rest of the vigilantes who also had guns that they were pointing at people.

    Somerby seems unable to place anything he hears into a larger context of what was occurring. How does someone who has aggressively shot and killed someone still have any right to self defense?

  4. ""That's pretty much the end of the trial?" You can't get dumber than that"

    Boo-hoo, dear Bob. The prosecution felt compelled to include a charge that is clearly bad faith. Why, dear Bob? If I were one of the jurors, then yes, that would've been the end of the trial for me. Get a better prosecutor next time.

    1. The prosecutors are now trying to add lesser charges.

  5. Here is how the even-handed Bob Somerby describes Tucker Carlson's presentation:

    "We saw a lot of instructive footage on Carlson's show that night. Along with that, the deluge—Carlson's inevitable gong-show, an analysis which would be quite misleading for viewers who trust the star."

    Here is how he describes the MSNBC presentation:

    "In the next few days, we saw performances on CNN and Morning Joe which struck us as ugly, evil, massively cherry-picked, destructive, demeaning, disgraceful.

    We thought the behavior by Joe Scarborough and Claire McCaskill was little short of a disgrace...

    In our view, the spinning and dissembling were general, as was the bloodlust put on display by the various millionaires."

    Of course, there is an inherent difference in the situation where one side is pursuing a conviction and the other is defending an accused person. Blood lust is not as likely for the defense because they are not trying to convict, as the prosecution is.

    Somerby's visceral reaction to the different news stations reveals his bias. For example, he doesn't seem to recognize that Carlson's "instructive" videos were also cherry-picked.

    Despite acknowledging that Carlson is presenting disinformation, Somerby buys the self-defense claim and prefers Carlson's coverage.

    That should tell everyone here everything they need to know about Somerby.

    1. Here’s the video of Tucker’s show on 11/9/2021. Tucker goes on to talk and show video of the witnesses’ testimony on Rosenbaum and Huber too, so I think Somerby isn’t being entirely fair to Tucker.

      Perhaps Somerby’s beef is in Tucker mentioning the victims’ prior records.

    2. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-carlson-reacts-to-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-its-a-disaster.amp

  6. I supposed the t-shirts lauding Rittenhouse are not an example of blood lust? Does Somerby realize that acquitting Rittenhouse will give a green light to the other militia members across the country who attend these rallies with weapons? Does he think that is good for free speech and our democracy?

    Notice how Somerby defends these miscreants by pretending that he thinks no one should ever be locked up for anything. He never seriously discusses how that might affect crime rates and whether that is any way to run a society. I find it a subterfuge to avoid dealing with the specifics of the crimes committed by those he defends -- always on the right, never on the left.

    Roy Moore was OK chasing 14 year old girls because their mamas would be happy to have him as a son-in-law.

    Brock Turner shouldn't have his life ruined by a rape conviction because the girl he was convicted of assaulting drank too much alcohol at a frat party.

    Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't go to jail for shooting protesters using an illegal weapon because someone pointed a gun at him while he was trying to escape.

    George Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong when he stalked and ultimately shot a teen because the teen tried to defend himself and had the upper hand (until he was shot).

    It doesn't matter that Donald Trump has done a large amount of damage to both individuals and our country, because his personality is so abnormal that he seems to be mentally ill (like Stalin and Hitler?), so people shouldn't be criticizing him and trying to restrain his actions, because he was elected in 2016 (but Somerby has said nothing about the validity of the 2020 election).

  7. "STRAHAN (11/11/21): Here you're allowed to say whatever you feel like you need to say. So you're saying that you actually didn't—you weren't pointing your gun at him. Is that what you're saying?

    GROSSKREUTZ: That's absolutely what I'm saying, yes."

    Somerby claims that Grosskreutz is like Aaron Rodgers, a liar. He doesn't acknowledge that there is a difference between holding a gun so that it is pointing in a direction where there are people, and aiming a gun at someone with an intention to shoot.

    Somerby is showing his own bias today. Cross examination requires yes and no answers and Grosskreutz had no chance to elaborate on his answer in court.

    Rittenhouse also shot at and wounded people who were unarmed. He was clearly excited about and eager to shoot protesters, based on his actions. Reaching to suggest that Grosskreutz, who had shot no one, would have shot Rittenhouse, shows Somerby's bias.

    Somerby is siding with a vigilante shooter instead of with those who were engaged in peaceful protest because he is conservative and not any kind of liberal. He is pretending that evidence (shown by Carlson) convinced him of his position, but that is not possible without the conversative frame of reference to excuse Rittenhouse and blame the protesters. It is that frame of reference that makes conservatives think it remotely possible that Rittenhouse fired because he was scared, and not because he was excited about taking a weapon to a protest where he would get to shoot people.

    Like the kid who asked at the Young Republican gather, when do we get to shoot people, Rittenhouse felt empowered, and that empowerment is coming from the right, from folks like Somerby, who think they must kill liberals in order to save the country -- and isn't that self-defense too?

    Somerby is no different than Carlson, no better than any other conservative Trump supporting asshole, the folks he defends here daily. If he weren't pretending to represent a liberal viewpoint, I wouldn't waste my time on him and his non-arguments cloaked in sophistry. But he is as big a liar as Rodgers himself, because he is no liberal. And Rittenhouse is a stone cold killer who deserves to go to jail, but probably won't because the right is jealous that he got to kill libs while they didn't. But Joe and Mika are the blood lusty ones? I don't think so.

  8. "(Question: Has anybody told the judge about what Grosskreutz has been saying?)"

    The judge with the Trump-campaign ringtone? Does anyone think it would make any difference?

  9. "We can see The Others when they behave in these ways, as they constantly do."

    Based on his mild statements about Carlson and Hannity, I don't believe that Somerby can "see" The Others when they behave badly. He clearly prefers them to the folks at MSNBC, who he thinks shouldn't be on the air. That calls his basis for musing about the media into serious question, in my opinion.

    I think Somerby should give up this pretense and stop calling himself liberal when he clearly isn't. He has no standing to criticize anyone else, when he is hiding behind his claim to be liberal while behaving like a conservative. I think Somerby should be "off the air" and close this blog. He no longer has any credibility and is making a fool of himself here.

  10. I love Rittenhouse.

    1. Loons always adore each other.

    2. You have no chance with him, if you're black.

    3. 2:07,
      Those of us who aren't trying to divide the country, love everyone.

    4. You are being really partisan if you don't admit he's cute. It's obvious.

    5. He's no Phyllis Diller.

    6. 7:35,
      I've noticed there are no football stadiums full of people chanting that they want to fuck Rittenhouse.

  11. "On balance, we'd have to say that the "...cherry-picking and the ugliness have been worse Over Here."

    Jump the shark much?

  12. Interesting, in Matt Taibbi's new post, he appears to be seriously considering that the establishment might be trying to start a civil war. Hate-mongering is good for business, apparently. Oh well...

    1. "...the establishment might be trying to start a civil war."

      When you go by the office to pick up your check, ask them if Taibbi is correct.

    2. Thanks for your confession, dear psycho-dembot, but we doubt that Mr Soros will be delivering your check personally, let alone answering your questions.

    3. Mao,
      Still the quickest wit in your preschool, I see.

  13. What else?

    Is Rittenhouse guilty or not?

    It was THE LIBRULZ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. There's a fellow who was shot by rittenhouse who did not point a gun at Rittenhouse.

    1. Rittenhuse went to Kenosha to defend racial hierarchies.

    2. The defense is having a lot of trouble explaining why Rittenhouse went to Kenosha. They are pretending he was a medic and that he had a job there, but why would even a 17 year old work so far from his home in a minimum wage job, when there are such jobs a lot closer?

      And why did he bring a gun if he was serving as a medic? Medics in the actual armed forces are not armed while carrying out their jobs in battle. Why would Rittenhouse be? And where were his medical supplies -- the ones he had no training to use? And why did he not help any of the victims he shot? Or anyone else?

      Somerby used to examine the gaping holes in stories like Rittenhouse's. Now he just repeats alt-right talking points, while pretending he isn't a bigot.

  15. I'm sorry no the context here is the groups this vigilante is working with. Corporate news don't follow the money.

    Defending these brown shirt wannabes is a low point for the geezer scratching out this blog. Fascism is not a corrective to liberalism you old fart.

    1. Have you asked him for your money back?

    2. Thanks, for the illustration, Anonymouse12:09pm. You don’t have to read anything with “Cecelia” heading it, but you will and then you’ll tell me to stop talking (f-off) precisely as you do to the blogger.

      You’ll do this while you are referencing my “poor social skills” after calling the blogger a “geezer”, Mao a “paid operator”, and someone else “jerk”.

      Again- have you asked for your money back?

    3. You are stupid. What you write is asinine. You are just dumb as hell. It doesn't take a paid interloper to see that. And it is you who are the troll. I guess you don't even know what troll means, which would be another item to add the list of things which make up evidence of your total stupidity. So please go to hell!

    4. Your anonymouse tantrum is cute and all, but you still haven’t answered my question.

    5. Have you ever sent Somerby any money? I have. I doubt he would give any money back, since it was years ago when he used to actually write something worth reading.

      He doesn't solicit contributions any more. Some of us speculate that it is because he is now well paid by the RNC or perhaps even the Russians, funneled through some front organization. Maybe you and he feed at the same trough?

    6. Anonymous1:23pm, you might be on to something here.

      Somerby is a glass-half-empty sort of person.

      He draws little attention from either party, though certainly talented and brilliant enough to have done anything.

      If anyone would pay him to be pessimistic and me to post, God knows, it would absolutely be the RNC.

    7. Somerby used to be listed on numerous liberal blogrolls. That has changed as he has become more obviously conservative and bigoted in what he writes here. I don't know what happened to him, but he wouldn't be the first one to fall under Trump's spell. He was more circumspect in defending the Old South and showing his bigotry before, but is now letting it all hang out.

      Somerby may be smart, but he is not brilliant. If he were talented, he would have become more of a success in standup comedy, or politics, since he had opportunities in both fields. His bitterness and vendetta against professors suggest he isn't happy with his own accomplishments, given that he started with obvious advantages that he has been unable to convert into success. He needs to come to terms with his own life and stop promoting things that are bad for our country. Disappointment is no excuse for hurting people, as he does here when he defends miscreants and spreads misinformation.

    8. Anonymouse 2:00pm, there’s a chance that you would be a better person if you weren’t so annoyed that the world isn’t populated by you and your clones.

    9. Cecelia, the majority in this country is populated by me and my clones. That's why you guys need to work so hard at vote suppression and subversion of the electoral process -- you cannot win on your own merits, except in rural areas and red enclaves, disappearing and on their way out nationwide. That's why your ilk are resorting to violence.

    10. Anonymouse 3:38pm, you’re not being fair to other liberals.they are not anonymouse clones.

      Yes, we know when Republicans win it’s always by voter suppression and when Democrats win it’s a moral victory.

      That’s partisanship. That’s the things that partisans say. I have no problem with that dynamic and in fact, just today this caused an Anonymouse to say that I wasn’t particularly interested in politics. I suppose, if in his book, I was interested, I’d be doing something natural such as citing Mengelesque studies about the pathological nature of all my political contrarians.

      Granted, THAT is the stuff of anonymices. You are militants who can’t tolerate any dissent and don’t even play well with fellow liberals who don’t concur with your views about Somerby or with your vehemence.

      I think the liberal non-anynonmices don’t consider themselves to be your clones. I also suspect that they find that remark very telling, indeed.

    11. That's not partisanship, Cecelia. It's dembottery. Partisanship is when you say that one group of politicians is preferable, and you suggest a sensible explanation.

      You get exposed to all this brain-dead dembottery, and you become cynical. That's a mistake, in our opinion.

      These here dembots are bots. And what they do is not 'partisanship'.

    12. It’s easy to get cynical, but I reserve cynicism for people in power. Not for militant ideologues daily writing 5000 words apiece against a blogger.

    13. Cecelia,
      Your jokes are worth a million dollars less than what I'm paying for them.

    14. "I reserve cynicism for people in power."

      Big deal. So does Mao. That's why neither of you are cynical towards Trump.

    15. For people in power -- and certainly for their bots, Cecelia. The point of having power is being able to raise armies. Armies of state functionaries, street thugs, media stooges, and - yes - bots.

  16. "I keep thinking about the audience member at an Idaho speech by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA who said this to Kirk:
    You're brave. You're brave for what you say, and the fact that you stand up there and say it, and I appreciate it. I think we all appreciate it actually, because there's not a lot of people that have the balls to do it. But I want to ask you something a little bit out of the ordinary, so prepare yourself. At this point, we're living under corporate and medical fascism. This is tyranny. When do we get to use the guns? No, and I'm not — that's not a joke. I'm not saying it like that. I mean, literally, where's the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?"

    Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog says this:

    "This man and others like him feel that violence would be fully justified -- which is horrifying enough -- but they also think they're not allowed to attempt it. Obviously they're afraid of the law. But the likely outcome of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial suggests that the law is fairly flexible when white conservatives are violently angry about something. (On the other hand, the January 6 prosecutions send the opposite message.)"

    Steve M suggests that right wing violence is being held at bay by their sense of victimization, saying:

    "I think there'd be more right-wing political violence in America if angry, armed right-wingers didn't cherish their sense of victimization. They're used to believing that even their allies aren't completely with them -- they won't sanction taking up arms, which is what all True Patriots feel compelled to do right now! Right-wingers felt less constrained on January 6 -- they were urged on by Trump and other authority figures -- so the violence happened.

    Also relevant to this, I think, is Amanda Marcotte's idea that right-wing vaccine refusal is war by other means:
    Vaccine refusal is being presented in right-wing media as a noble act of resistance against Democratic "tyranny." Any effort to prevent the disease ... is increasingly viewed as an attack on red-state America. After the Jan. 6 insurrection failed, the radicalized members of the GOP have had few options to exercise their militaristic fantasies against Joe Biden's administration. Refusing the vaccine isn't as sexy as taking up arms against the government, but it still plays with the glamorous notion of putting your body on the line for your political views....
    Their leaders are sanctioning this embrace of death. Right-wing authority figures are telling the rank-and-file that they "get" to do this, so they're doing it.

    I don't think we've seen the worst yet. Maybe we won't. If Republican politicians, Fox hosts, radio talkers, or popular podcasters start telling these guys to shoot people, they'll do it. But most of them are holding back for now, even though they're ready and willing."

    And this is why the Rittenhouse trial outcome is so important and the prospect of his acquittal so dismaying. It gives permission to those who are waiting to be told that it is OK to shoot liberals.

    1. Maybe so, but here's an opposite view: The left has been indulging in violence for years and getting away with it. Over 20 people have been killed at ANTIFA and BLM rallies. Innumerable cases of arson were committed, causing millions of dollars of damage and burnt out neighborhoods. Yet, there have been hardly any arrests. The mainstream media soft-pedals the coverage or entirely ignores the atrocities.

      A brave young man stood up to the carnage, when police and media virtually ignored the problem. The evidence shows that that he was attacked by left wing rioters. If Rittenhouse is unjustly convicted, that will be a victory for violent, armed left-wing mobs.

      P.S. This is why gun sales have been booming. People look at reality. They cannot depend on authorities to defend them. They must rely on self-defense.

    2. David, you seem to have taken up fiction!

      By your story, the deaths committed by Rittenhouse are being attributed to the left, and that doesn't seem right to me.

      What "carnage" was occurring before Rittenhouse shot? And what have the police been doing at such demonstrations if not arresting largely non-violent protesters? Your story bears no resemblance to the long list of studies showing that the BLM protests were peaceful.

      You also seem to believe, without evidence, that rioters are leftist. There is no support for that belief, especially if you are singling out those who engage in property damage and actual violence. There is certainly no equivalent on the left to the right-wing militias, armed to the teeth.

      How can Rittenhouse be "unjustly" convicted when there is video of him shooting people at the protest? The evidence shows that he shot someone and then several others tried to stop him from shooting more people. The police encouraged Rittenhouse and did nothing to stop him after he shot several people. The left has far more reason to believe the police will not protect them, than the right does. Yet the left does not go out and buy guns like the right does.

      If this is what you believe, you are living in fantasy-land, no doubt encouraged by the disinformation freely available on Fox and sites like this one, which pretends to be left wing while supporting the myths told by Fox.

      All of this hinges on the existence of "violent, armed left-wing mobs" but where is the evidence of that? It doesn't exist. That's what each of those various studies I posted about yesterday found. The right, doesn't accept evidence when it contradicts their cherished beliefs. I don't expect anything anyone says will change your mind about this "opposite view".

    3. To David:

      "Pope Francis decried societies which rush indifferently past the poor, often judging them instead of helping them, as he celebrated Sunday Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica attended by 2,000 indigent people."

    4. We spent a summer here being told that violence was the inevitable response to being victimized. That the police deserved to have firebombs and soup cans thrown at them because the police are legalized killers.

      We were told, in the manner of Marie Antonette, that it was only buildings (insured) that were being looted and burned and that being appalled at that meant we cared nothing about victimized minorities who were working out their inevitable rage at societal oppression.

      If fact, whenever looting and burning was mentioned we were immediately reminded about the venture capitalists who were guilty of lawlessness in the way that people who tried to destroy police precincts, churches, courthouses, and the property of local politicians were not.

      Now, after after the remarks that the riots were just, when it finally comes out that moronic leftist whites in lululemon and high dollar hotels cost us billions, we learn that “studies” have shown that it was all waged by conservatives and the Proud Boys.

      I’ve got news for you. There aren’t a thousand people on the planet who buy that.

    5. You mean there aren't a thousand Fox-watching alt-right Trump-supporting conservatives who buy it. The rest of us are in touch with reality and believe what is shown to be true.

      I am absolutely certain that you, Cecelia, have never been to a BLM demonstration and have no idea what happens at them. You see some looting and accept the generalization of rare property damage, often committed by opportunists and alt-right activists and not protesters, and believe that all black, poor, and liberals commit such acts, because Fox tells you so. You are the dupe of the right, which takes your vote and your donations and gives you absolutely nothing in return (unless you are wealthy and want a tax cut). It sucks to be you because you are being played. And not by the left, by your own side.

    6. I’m sorry, but there’s too many video showing the crowds that were rioting and looting and the people screaming in the faces of police officers.

      Anonymices may have collective amnesia about how they justified the violence of that summer, but no one else does.

    7. How many videos have you seen of the many hours and thousands of people peacefully marching? How many videos have shown you footage of nothing happening but demonstrators making their views know, peacefully?

      They only show the tiny minority (around 5%) of demonstrations where there is violence. The % is roughly equivalent to crime rates for other types of events, such as shopping at a mall or attending a concert (where the performer doesn't incite a stampede).

      The term cherry-picking fits the tendency of news shows to only show the violence, as they did during hurricane Katrina, and not the hundreds of thousands of peaceful people gathered to protest police wrongdoing.

      You are overgeneralizing the scenes you've seen in such videos and mistakenly attributing them to groups such as BLM, liberals, and antifa (a group that doesn't exist). You no doubt do this because Fox tells you too, just as Somerby repeats the things Hannity tells him to, much like Trump did while president.

    8. Anonymouse 4:32pm, you can’t comprehend that you are utterly generalizing when you say that the George Floyd protests were largely peaceful—except for almost two almost 2billion in property damage?

      Right. Most of our 50 states weren’t affected by rioting either…


    9. Those stats I quoted weren't only for George Floyd protests but for all of the BLM protests, and the damage you quote was not committed by protesters, it represents insurance claims by small businesses. If you don't believe those were inflated, you don't know how such things operate. The Axios quote was 1-2 billion, not 2 billion.

      I don't consider property damage violence. For one thing, looting occurs because opportunists and poor people steal stuff while the police are busy harrassing marchers. The marchers don't do the looting. Second, fires being set during riots are not peaceful demonstrations or any kind of demonstration. They happen after sporting events! They are people expressing their frustration with the problems in their lives. And it isn't protesters doing that either. In some of the BLM protests, anti-BLM groups deliberately set fires (such as burning the police department building) in order to attach blame to the protesters and/or start a race riot/civil war. That kind of thing, done by the alt-right, is included in the insurance stats you cite, but didn't result from the protest. It is terrorism committed by the alt-right.

      You really need to read the links I provided and not just the ones that support your current point of view.

    10. "I’m sorry, but there’s too many video showing the crowds that were rioting and looting and the people screaming in the faces of police officers."

      *************Red Herring Alert********

      You've seen far too many videos of cops assaulting citizens, but that hasn't influenced how you feel about cops in the slightest.

      Let's face it. You're nothing but a Right-wing troll.

      Now go home and cry about how I just "cancel cultured" (criticized) you, you miserable piece of shit.

    11. David in Cal,
      The 2nd Amendment is to fight the tyranny of the government (i.e. shoot police officers). If gun sales are booming, it's because people fear the police more and more every day.
      If you graphed the increase in gun sales, it would align with the increase of talk about de-funding the police, and getting rid of their qualified immunity almost perfectly.

    12. 7:12,
      I'm no mind reader, but I'm pretty sure David already knows what you wrote is true. His bad faith arguments are a form of denial.

  17. Somerby and other conservatives need to read this:


    1. Thanks for the link, @4:27. It's like a poem. It presents a picture, but it's devoid of facts.

  18. Bob's carping about the left's bloodthirsty aspect in this matter might be worth considering, had he ever written a word about Trump and the Central Park Five. In any event, it's hard to believe Bob is surprised by these proceedings, self defensive was always going to be a viable claim and this was noted by journalists who wrote about this case from the start. "Morning Joe" we should note, is awful but often cuts both ways politically.
    That Bob has no interest is the freakish performance by the judge in this case, who cracks cornball anti Biden jokes and asks the jury to APPLAUD defense witnesses is sadly not surprising. The Dylan tune Bob never heard, one supposes, is "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol."