By Scott Hounsell | Nov 06, 2021
The FBI’s presence in Kenosha sets off a cascade of questions, all of the answers to which should trigger every alarm in the book.
The Rittenhouse trial has been a marvel to watch, simply because the prosecution’s presentation of this case has been a train wreck of dumpster fires. We’ve watched as the defense has absolutely filleted almost everything the prosecution has presented, as the Judge continues to make statements that will likely benefit the defense’s case.
However, a funny thing happened in the courtroom that went by even me for a bit. Here we were talking about the various videos that were taken at the scene and what they show. Here’s the one video of one angle, of one part of the street, and then there’s another of this other angle, showing these people who were involved in the shoot. Then there’s the FBI drone video directly over the shooting, and there there’s another video on the ground in front of the gas station.
Each of the videos provided its own unique view of…… wait…. go back a minute…. what’s that part about an FBI drone?? Why in the hell was there an FBI drone directly over the shooting? Have we even considered the ramifications of what that actually means? Our government, for any reason that they perceive to be a threat, can conduct mass surveillance of you without a warrant?
Certainly, this was a public place and the courts have ruled that surveillance can be conducted in public without a warrant, however, there were local police resources. Why would the FBI be conducting this surveillance if they had no way of stopping or preventing what was happening, from occurring? Regardless of the legality of it, should we as citizens become comfortable with the idea that this is normal?
Out of an abundance of generosity, let’s just say they were somehow justified with having a drone overhead, why this specific area? Kenosha riots covered several dozen square blocks of town, so if they were conducting surveillance, were they doing so with multiple drones? There are two very simple answers to the question: Yes and no............To Read More....
By Victoria Taft Nov 06, 2021
Prosecutors arguing to put Kyle Rittenhouse in prison for the rest of his life tipped their hand on how they plan to do that in the fourth day of testimony on Friday. Questions abound, however, about its relevance and admissibility in court.............
Indeed, Kraus said he planned to tell the jury that Huber was a “hero” for attacking Rittenhouse because of his possible belief that Rittenhouse was an active shooter............
The judge said he’d allow the testimony and the defense could respond. And the defense said, great, we’re going to tell the story about that cool time when Huber held a knife to his brother’s neck and stomach and threatened to gut him, the time he strangled someone, and the time he threatened to burn the house down with all his family members inside.
Good times. Indeed, there’s plenty to bring up about the “habit and custom” of Anthony Huber. Here’s part of his rap sheet, a record which likely will never see the inside of a courtroom..........
No comments:
Post a Comment