Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted of all charges after tense trial in Kenosha

FAST FACTS

• Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, is on trial for killing two men and wounding a third with a rifle during a turbulent night of protests that erupted in Kenosha.
• Judge Bruce Schroeder granted one juror’s request Thursday to take copies of the instructions home with them and noted that the 36 pages are complicated. 

Jurors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Friday declared Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, capping off an intense trial surrounding the deadly unrest in that city last summer. 

A breakdown of the Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty verdict

Count 1: First Degree Reckless Homicide – Not Guilty

Count 2: First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety – Not Guilty

Count 3: First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety – Not Guilty

Count 4: First Degree Intentional Homicide – Not Guilty

Count 5: Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide – Not Guilt

Rittenhouse, 18, would have faced a mandatory life sentence if found guilty and convicted of first-degree intentional homicide.

The verdict came on the fourth day of deliberations and 15th day of the trial.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, during a press briefing prior to the not guilty verdict being announced in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, said “once it’s concluded, I’m sure there will be something we have to say from the White House.”

Jurors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Friday declared Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, capping off an intense trial surrounding the deadly unrest in that city last summer.

Rittenhouse, 18, would have faced a mandatory life sentence if found guilty and convicted of first-degree intentional homicide.

“I couldn’t have asked for a better jury to work with and it has truly been my pleasure,” Judge Bruce Schroeder said after delivering the verdict. “I think, without commenting on your verdict, the verdicts themselves, just in terms of your attentiveness and the cooperation that you gave to us, justifies the confidence that the founders of our country placed in you so I dismiss you at this time.”

He continued: “You’re never under any obligation to discuss any aspect of this case with anyone. You’re welcome to do so as little or as much as you want.”

The verdict came on the fourth day of deliberations and 15th day of the trial.

Jurors deliberated for a total of 26 hours and found Rittenhouse not guilty on five counts including first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. Judge Bruce Schroeder had previously dismissed two additional counts related to his weapon.

Local officers, media and protesters were seen positioned around the Kenosha County Courthouse Friday.

Rittenhouse was facing charges of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety after he fatally shot two people and injured a third person during the second night of civil unrest in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020.

The judge tossed one charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 on Monday after Rittenhouse’s defense team argued that a subsection of the law concerning short-barreled rifles was grounds for dismissal. 

His attorneys argued that the then-17-year-old was acting in self-defense after being attacked from behind when he shot Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, as well as deceased Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26 in the riots following the police shooting of a 29-year-old Black man, Jacob Blake.

Audrey Conklin. Follow her on Twitter at @audpants. Jiovanni Lieggi contributed to this report.

Democrats at each other’s throats as another senator takes swing at Biden’s $3.5T spending spree agenda

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., reiterated Thursday that she will not support a $3.5 trillion spending bill, in the latest sign of discord among key Democrats as President Biden scrambles to rally support for his signature piece of legislation.

“Senator Sinema said publicly more than two months ago, before Senate passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, that she would not support a bill costing $3.5 trillion,” Sinema’s office said in a statement shared on her Twitter account. “In August, she shared detailed concerns and priorities, including dollar figures, directly with Senate Majority Leader [Chuck] Schumer and the White House. Claims that the Senator has not detailed her views to President Biden and Senator Schumer are false.”

Biden has personally met with Sinema and fellow moderate Democrat holdout Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia on multiple occasions this week to negotiate an agreement on the spending bill. With a razor-thin majority, Biden needs every Senate Democrat to support his bill for it to pass.

Earlier Thursday, Manchin said he would not support a spending bill with a topline number larger than $1.5 trillion. 

Sinema’s latest statement followed criticism from prominent progressives who say moderate opponents to the full spending bill have not been clear on their priorities. Critics included Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of many progressives who will not vote to approve the $1.2 trillion bipartisan physical infrastructure deal unless the Senate first passes a spending bill focused on social programs.

“We need to know what he’s a skeptic on so that we can have the conversation with him. There has been no clarity in what they actually want, both Sinema and Manchin,” Omar told the Washington Post.

The statement from Sinema’s office added that Biden and Schumer “are fully aware of Senator Sinema’s priorities, concerns and ideas.”

“While we do not negotiate through the press – because Senator Sinema respects the integrity of those direct negotiations – she continues to engage directly in good-faith discussions with both President Biden and Senator Schumer to find common ground,” the statement said.

By Thomas Barrabi

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den

Taliban fighters Thursday opened fire on a group of protesters celebrating Afghanistan’s independence day and waving the Afghan national flag in Kabul. 

Afghans gathered in the streets to commemorate the anniversary of a 1919 treaty that gave the country independence from Great Britain and waved the Afghanistan national flag, only to be dispersed by gunfire from Taliban forces.

In the video obtained by Fox News, Afghans who were upset that the Taliban changed the national flag after taking over on Sunday took to the streets on foot and in cars waving the former national flag. Shots can be heard being fired by the Taliban and the crowd quickly disperses in panic. 

“In many cities, the Taliban opened gunfire and charged and beat the people,” a source told Fox News, explaining that protesters were attacked by Taliban fighters across the country in similar fashion.

The source added that the Taliban had removed a large Afghan flag in Kabul and the protesters in the video were attempting to replace it but were driven back. 

“May the Afghan flag fly forever,” the protesters could be heard chanting while others shouted, “Long live Ashraf Ghani” in reference to the now-deposed former president of Afghanistan, who fled the country as the Taliban took control. 

“May Afghanistan live forever,” others chanted. 

At least two people were reportedly killed in a similar protest in the country’s Kunar province after gunfire prompted a stampede.

U.S. forces are trying to evacuate thousands of American citizens and allies trapped in Kabul, where the Taliban has taken full control of the city with the sole exception of the Hamid Karzai International Airport, where 4,500 U.S. troops are currently occupying.

President Biden has authorized 6,000 U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan to assist in the evacuation mission, as the Taliban pushes to restore the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – the formal name of the country under the Taliban rule before the militants were ousted by U.S.-led forces in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were orchestrated by Al Qaeda while it was being sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. 

The president, adamantly standing by his initial decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by Aug. 31, outlined the current mission for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, saying it will be “short in time, limited in scope and focused on our objectives: get our people and our allies as quickly and as safely as possible.”

By Andrew Mark Miller | Lucas Y. Tomlinson contributed to this report.

The New Testament of the Bible contains the story of the life of Jesus Christ. Within its pages is recounted how He was crucified on Friday, and his body was hastily removed from the cross and placed into a tomb hewn into the rock, with very little time to appropriately prepare the body for final burial before the Jewish Sabbath started at sunset.

It was early Sunday morning when Mary Magdalene and other women disciples arrived at the tomb to see the sepulcher and prepare His body. Suddenly there was a great earthquake and an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow.

The angel said to the women, “Fear not: for I know that you seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is arisen. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” He then instructed her to go and tell Jesus’ disciples that He was risen from the dead and that He would go before them to Galilee; and there they would see Him.

The others ran to tell the Apostles what they had seen and heard, but Mary stood at the door of the sepulcher weeping. As she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher, and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain.

They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

She said, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.”

And when she had spoken she turned back, and saw Jesus standing, but knew not that it was Him. He spoke to her and said, “Woman, why are you crying? Whom do you seek?”

She, supposing him to be the gardener, said, “Sir, if you have borne him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

Jesus looked upon her with compassion, and said, “Mary.”

Suddenly recognizing His voice, she turned herself and said to him, “Rabboni,” which is to say, Master.

Mary ran to him and embraced him, but Jesus said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.’”

What is the significance of this event nearly 2,000 years later? Each of us must decide its implications and importance for ourselves, and apply its lessons and realities in our own lives as we interpret the message for ourselves. John, the Apostle who recorded this version of the incident gives us his own explanation of why he recorded it: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.”

Let us remember Him this Easter.

James Thompson is a Christian author, political commentator and ghostwriter.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, released photos of migrants in clear pens akin to cages

Photos of migrants in a crowded border facility in Donna, Texas, were released Monday by the office of Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, as the Biden administration limits media access to the southwestern border. 

The migrants, who are in clear pens akin to cages, are seen sleeping on pads on the floor with aluminum blankets. In some instances, it appears that dozens are sharing individual pens. Most appear to be wearing masks.

Amid a significant surge of migrants to the southern border in President Biden’s first two months, some in the media have complained about a lack of access to facilities like the one in Donna.

“I respectfully ask US Customs and Border Protection to stop blocking media access to their border operations,” award-winning photojournalist John Moore tweeted Friday. “I have photographed CBP under Bush, Obama and Trump but now – zero access is granted to media. These long-lens images taken from the Mexican side.”

He added: “There’s no modern precedent for a full physical ban on media access to CBP border operations.”

The White House has said that it is limiting media access to border facilities in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday that the Biden administration is aiming to finalize details on how the media can access border facilities like the one in Donna, Texas. 

Psaki responded to the photos on Monday, as a reporter asked her whether the conditions the migrant children are being kept in represent a crisis. 

“Children presenting at our border who are fleeing violence, who are fleeing prosecution, who are fleeing terrible situations, is not a crisis,” she responded. “We feel that it is our responsibility to humanely approach this circumstance and make sure they are treated and put in conditions that are safe. I will say that these photos show what we’ve long been saying, which is that these border patrol facilities are not places made for children. They are not places that we want children to be staying for an extended period of time. Our alternative is to send children back on this treacherous journey. That is not, in our view, the right choice to make.”

She continued to say that the Biden administration is aiming to ease the pressure on facilities like the one in Donna, Texas.

The photos released Monday also upset some on the right who believed Democrats are being hypocritical in saying there is no crisis currently on the southern border after sounding the alarm over the treatment of migrants under former President Donald Trump. 

“Either Dems and media faked the tears and ‘outrage’ pre-Biden, or they meant it,” Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., tweeted. “If it’s the latter, where are they now? Kids are in cages. And this surge is far worse than any under President Trump.”

By Tyler Olson, Evie Fordham contributed to this report. 

Lawmakers in the House and Senate on Tuesday welcomed the Justice Department’s (DOJ’s) move to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google that claims the tech behemoth used its power to preserve its monopoly via its search engine.

“Today’s lawsuit is the most important antitrust case in a generation,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said in a statement. “Google and its fellow Big Tech monopolists exercise unprecedented power over the lives of ordinary Americans, controlling everything from the news we read to the security of our most personal information. And Google in particular has gathered and maintained that power through illegal means.”

The DOJ suit alleges that Google has used its dominance in online search and advertising to stifle competition and boost profits. The suit could be an opening shot in a battle against a number of Big Tech companies in the coming months.

A Google spokesperson told Fox News: “Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed. People use Google because they choose to — not because they’re forced to or because they can’t find alternatives. We will have a fuller statement this morning.”

According to the lawsuit, “For years, Google has entered into exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements, and engaged in anticompetitive conduct to lock up distribution channels and block rivals.”

“American consumers are forced to accept Google’s policies, privacy practices, and use of personal data; and new companies with innovative business models cannot emerge from Google’s long shadow. For the sake of American consumers, advertisers, and all companies now reliant on the internet economy, the time has come to stop Google’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition,” it says.

The DOJ claims the action was brought to stop Google from “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices, and to remedy the effects of this conduct.”

“Largely as a result of Google’s exclusionary agreements and anticompetitive conduct, Google in recent years has accounted for nearly 90 percent of all general-search-engine queries in the United States, and almost 95 percent of queries on mobile devices,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit has been in the works for over a year, and Big Tech executives from Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter have been anticipating an announcement — designing their testimonies in Congress to ward off a potential federal suit. 

House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David N. Cicilline, D-R.I., described the lawsuit as “long overdue” and brought attention to prior investigations by the committee.

“The Subcommittee’s investigation uncovered extensive evidence showing that Google maintained and extended its monopoly to harm competition,” he said in a statement. “It is critical that the Justice Department’s lawsuit focuses on Google’s monopolization of search and search advertising, while also targeting the anti-competitive business practices Google is using to leverage this monopoly into other areas, such as maps, browsers, video, and voice assistants.”

The lawsuit alleges that Google used billions of dollars from advertisers to pay phone manufacturers to ensure Google is the default search engine on browsers.

“For a general search engine, by far the most effective means of distribution is to be the preset default general search engine for mobile and computer search access points,” the lawsuit says. “Even where users can change the default, they rarely do. This leaves the preset default search engine with de facto exclusivity.”

The Trump administration has long had Google in its sights. A top economic adviser to President Trump said two years ago that the White House was considering whether Google searches should be subject to government regulation. 

Trump and other Republicans have accused Big Tech companies of having an anti-conservative bias — claims they have denied.

In a press conference, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said that the case had nothing to do with online bias, and was only about competitive conditions in the marketplace.

By Gillian Turner, Jake Gibson and Bill Mears, as well as The Associated Press, contributed to this report.Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics.

Sponsors:

GHOSTWRITER book ghostwriting service >

ROADRUNNER website design and marketing automation >

President Trump has promised to announce a pick for the US Supreme Court promptly, specifying this coming Saturday. The seat was vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday at age 87 following cancer complications.

Democrats have been howling that there would be something unjust about Trump nominating Ginsburg’s successor, and for the GOP controlled Senate giving its “advice and consent” regarding the nomination. Of course, that is exactly what the US Constitution requires of each of them.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, has announced that there are enough votes in the senate to confirm Trump’s pick.

Trump has indicated that he plans to nominate a woman to the high court. Sources say that the president has already met with 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a very well known conservative judge, recently approved by the Senate to sit on the 7th Circuit bench.

In retaliation for the President and Senate doing their constitutionally mandated jobs, Democrats are threatening (again) to “pack” the Court when they take control of the White House and Senate–hopeful that will be the outcome of the upcoming November election.

Packing the US Supreme Court was threatened by FDR when the Supreme Court ruled many of his big government New Deal power grabs were unconstitutional. Packing the Court means (to liberals) adding liberal justices to the present 9 justices, diluting the conservative votes on the court. For instance, if Trump and the Senate install a conservative justice on the Court, it will give the court 6 conservative voices and 3 liberal. By packing the court with additional justices, say a total of 13, that would leave the Court with 6 conservatives and 7 liberals–ensuring that every case would be ruled on according to liberal activist philosophy.

Okay — Let’s Pack the Court, if it’s such a great idea!

If Democrats are so keen on the idea of packing the Court, perhaps the Republicans, who have actually been voted into control of the White House and the Senate by The People, should do just that.

Perhaps President Trump should nominate 5 judges to be seated on the Supreme Court, raising its members to 13. Indeed, such an act would ensure conservative (historically constitutional) rulings from SCOTUS for the next 30 or 40 years–probably much longer.

The Democrats could not overcome this super-majority by adding a few more judges to the Court when they take control–unless they add enough justices to total 21. Although the Democrats have proved that there is no new low to which they are unwilling to go–no law, tradition or rule they are unwilling to break–I cannot see them convincing The People of the need for 21 Justices on the Court.

If Packing the Court is a great idea–then let’s do it. If it’s a stupid idea, and it is, then it shouldn’t be done by either party. When I say “shouldn’t be done,” I mean that a party that threatens to do it should be permanently retired by The People, and never given The People’s trust again.

By James Thompson | James Thompson is a political consultant and a ghostwriter.

Sponsored:

Would a BOOK with YOUR NAME on the cover launch you?

Be the one to get the speaking and media invitations.

I’ll help you write and publish your book in just 12 weeks. Get details, my fees, etc. in this FREE brochure:

Watch a 1 min VIDEO that explains my process:

Need non-lethal self protection? Byrna offers non-lethal self protection at an affordable price. Click to Watch the short video, or click to learn more!