Slog AM: Giuliani's Latest Humiliation, Kenosha Killer Out on Bail, and Failed Republican Candidate Insists He's Not Owned

Comments

1

I guess it looks like Yosemite Sam stand-up 69-ing a fish? The expression on his face would seem to say so. lolol

2

/Republinazi death cult/

"In systematically implementing these central government policies on a nationwide basis, South Korea, with a population of almost 52 million, was able to limit its COVID 19 deaths to a remarkable 464 deaths as of October 31 (that translates to fewer than 3,000 deaths in America with a population of 330,000,000 instead of the current toll of 250,000 deaths and climbing). History will show that the above commonsensical steps are exactly what Trump did not do. Instead he chose to divide the nation with an “us” versus “them” approach to masks and social distancing. Trump clearly saw the pandemic as political rather than a health crisis. The calculated tack he pursued played a major role in the fact that America began to lose over 1,300 to the virus in a single day (more than twice the entire number of nationwide COVID 19 deaths in South Korea in 9 months) and to see over 170,000 new cases in a single day.

By mid November America was experiencing the daily equivalent of a Jonestown mass suicide or a 9/11-scale mass casualty terror attack three times a week. Under the president’s leadership America would see the most Coronavirus cases of any nation in the world and become the global epicenter, even as the unemployment rate ultimately soared to 14.7%, the highest since the Great Depression. In the epidemiological sense the USA came to resemble the “hot zone” of Congo during the Ebola outbreak and European nations banned their citizens from flying to America."

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/terrorism-expert-details-the-rise-and-fall-of-trumps-cult/

3

Dotard Judas Tr666p: The World's Deadliest Bio-terrorist

4

I find Rittenhouse's politics appalling and his decision to show up at a protest with an AR-15 both extremely stupid and inflamitory, but I find it unlikely he will be convicted of murder. Having watched the videos and listened to the interviews of eyewitnesses, I think he had a fairly solid self defense argument, which his lawyers have already stated they will be using.

5

Snowy Owls "irrupt" south to Puget Sound every decade or so when the population exceeds the food supply, and typically just 1 or 2 of them.

6

@4: straw purchase, underage possession across state lines, Huber and Grosskreutz were trying to defend themselves against a lone gunman with an MSSA who'd just killed someone.

Rosenbaum did what? threw a can of tuna at Rittenhouse?

7

Ricky Schroder helped bail out Rittenhouse. Apparently everyone in "The Champ" sucks.

8

@ 4,

Just wait for the wrongful death civil suits against his parents, which will also preclude them from perversely profiting from his murders from movie deals or wingnut welfare.

They’re gonna be spending the rest of their lives living in a cardboard box.

9

@6 He is definitely guilty of underage procession and likely of straw purchase and should be found guilty of those charges, but by my understanding is that does not invalidate his self defense claim.

Huber and Grosskreutz both chased down someone trying to disengage (Rittenhouse was running away). Huber used his skateboard as a weapon and attempted to disarm Rittenhouse, Grosskreutz was arguably bringing his pistol to bear. I agree that Huber and Grosskreutz believed they were heroically apprehending a violent killer, but whatever their motives, given their actions it is reasonable for Rittenhouse to believe there was a threat of severe bodily harm.

Rosembaum chased Rittenhouse down and reached for his riffle (according to eye witness accounts) seconds after a second pursuer fired his gun. Again, I'm not trying to besmirch Rosembaum's motives, but once he went to disarm Rittenhouse that legally gave Rittenhouse the right to use force, particularly since Rittenhouse was fleeing (that's another reason we should ban these fucking weapons).

I really don't like defending Rittenhouse as I find his beliefs abhorrent, but I'm trying to honestly analysis this case.

10

With Rittenhouse and Culp/Trump, the real message is: Republicans are whipping themselves into a homicidal, anti-constitutional frenzy, and over what? That black people ask that you treat them like, you know, people? That we don’t automatically assume everyone is a Christian? That some of us don’t want to pretend like it’s the 1800’s and cowboys on horseback (or F350’s - practically same same) are the heroes of today’s world? It’s all stupid stuff to spark a civil war / stage a coup over, but that seems increasingly like what they’re after.

11

Nothing lewd going on between Yosemite Sam and that fish.

Nothing lewd going on between that man and that turkey.

Oh, and I appreciate the tip to make this a turkey-free Thanksgiving. Hey, people are going to be breaking enough traditions this Thanksgiving anyway. What's another one? And I can attest that turkeys are magnificent beasts, even if some of them can be prehistorically freaky-looking.

12

Note for the record: Yosemite Sam also has not conceded in the gubernatorial contest.

13

https://www.patriciarobertsmiller.com/2020/08/28/holding-out-for-a-hero-the-far-right-canonization-of-kyle-rittenhouse/

Worth posting/reading again.

Also, it's a dolphin.

14

So thankful that the law recognizes that Rittenhouse committed MURDER and the people commenting here are not involved. Rittenhouse walked around with a weapon he had no business having, hunting people, MURDERED SOMEONE, was chased by people who SAW HIM MURDER SOMEONE, and then he shot those people, murdering one of them and almost murdering a third. In no realm of the law is that self defense.

I used this analogy before and I will use it again, that's like saying if Adam Lanza lived, he could claim self defense in the murder of the principal who ran toward him and tried to stop him after he killed some of the children at Sandy Hook, but before he killed more. Or how about 6 year old Jesse Lewis? He distracted Lanza while Lanza had to reload (telling his classmates to run, saving their lives) and when Lanza reloaded he murdered Jesse Lewis. Oh and Lanza owned all of those weapons legally, at least his mommy did, who he also shot in the face before going out on his murdering spree of human beings.

Any and all commenters who believe in any way that Rittenhouse was defending himself are fully supporting a disturbed killer who went to another state to hunt people, did exactly that, and has been arrested and charged with murder for doing it.

15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCkFSe3voRc

Stop defending kids with guns.

16

@9: I mostly agree with all that, but I do think Huber and Grosskreutz were trying to apprehend and disarm in self-defense.

2 things I wonder about:
1. Can you legally self-defend yourself with a weapon you are illegally in possession of?
2. If Grosskreutz had killed Rittenhouse after being shot by him, would that have been self-defense?

17

@16

That would depend on the details of the law, but from what I have read in Wisconsin you can legally use an weapon illegally in your possession for self defense.
Maybe, however it could be argued that having not made an attempt to disengage waives his right to self defense. My understanding is that Wisconsin is not a strictly "duty to retreat state" or a strictly "stand your ground state", but that the jury is instructed to consider ones ability to retreat in determining valid self defense. This is why I think that Rittenhouse's running away is fairly important from a legal perspective since it establishes an attempt to retreat clearing one of the potential hurdles in claiming self defense.

18

@16

That would depend on the details of the law, but from what I have read in Wisconsin you can legally use an weapon illegally in your possession for self defense.
Maybe, however it could be argued that having not made an attempt to disengage waives his right to self defense. My understanding is that Wisconsin is not a strictly "duty to retreat state" or a strictly "stand your ground state", but that the jury is instructed to consider ones ability to retreat in determining valid self defense. This is why I think that Rittenhouse's running away is fairly important from a legal perspective since it establishes an attempt to retreat clearing one of the potential hurdles in claiming self defense.

19

@17 The real question that I'd like to see answered is whether someone in WI can claim self defense after having already started an assault. In other words, once you have threatened and shot someone unprovoked, do you lose the self-defense claim for the rest of the conflict?

20

Maybe they covered how elections work and the part about how the one with more votes wins in HS Civics the year after Loren Culp dropped out.

@13 - thanks for pointing that out. At least a dolphin is a mammal. Makes me feel much better about old Sam - now, sex with a fish - THAT would be sick.

21

This is not about and never will be about self defense. It is about premeditated lethal aggression and sanctioned apologists trying to change the subject from murder. If your teenage nephew crosses state lines illegally with an assault rifle and gets pushed by an angry Trump supporter after his gun "goes off," he has no right to open fire on people trying to stop him from shooting again. What about the self defense rights of the crowd who was there to invoke their first amendment rights? They didn't threaten him with a gun. He fucked up and he should live the rest of his life paying for that decision.

22

Because the people he shot have no life left, their ability to defend themselves is somehow invalidated by his choice. If you're the party of personal responsibility, act like it. And fuck the rest of you dipshits trying to make some legal case for what flies in the face of common decency and sense because you're a bunch of peons who can't apply justice evenly. Live as slaves if you want to, you're pathetic.

23

So the job that Inslee shoulda got is going to that old fossil Kerry.
Oh well, those grapes were probably sour anyway, right?
I mean, from appearances it is going to be largely a ceremonial post with a lot of pontificating and speechifying and no real influence or power.
"special climate envoy" with a "seat on the national security council" , hmmm... to quote John Nance Gardner, that sounds like "not worth a bucket of warm piss".

26

@19 Certainly not. The validity of the self defense claim for the second shootings is dependent on successfully arguing that Rosembaum was killed in self defense.

27

So you're telling me it's okay to shoot Trump supporters in self-defense if they push me if I decide to enter a crowd of Covid denialists who insist that Trump won the election and they get mad and threaten me. So every teenage gang member who gets their hand on an assault rifle and kicks a hornet's nest is free to do so because of self defense.

He is already on federal crime status for interstate commerce violations, capital murder is right up there too. Bail don't mean shit, he shot in fear. And he appeals to a bunch of cowards who are too afraid to face reality and will enable murder because they wish they could go shoot people they disagreed with. It's the most anti-American display I've ever seen in my life.

29

@14 Hate to ruin your attempt at analysis, but if AOC was so bad for Democrats, why was it that progressives did very well at the sate level, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus will be growing this session. What hurt Democrats down-ballot was attracting all those Anti-Trump Republicans to vote for Biden. Hint: just because they vote for a Democrat to save the Republic from Trump does not mean they don't vote straight Republican after that.

30

@28. The law is written by moneyed interests and applied based on appealing to emotions and selectively evaluated evidence in a for-profit assembly line. I used to analyze criminal justice statutes for consideration by committee, I'm aware of how often the law fails to meet common sense and justice because jurors are swayed by the text instead of justice. There is a time when applying the standard in the text must be compared with all iterations and the consequences of such judgments as precedent for cases. If you cannot apply the text of the law evenly, then you cannot depend on the law as written and stunted by failure to secure the blessings of liberty for all and the Constitutional rights that supersede all statutes because of apologists with bad faith like your dumbass trying to find any excuse to justify murder for Rittenhouse and every excuse to punish the outgroup for anyone else. It's disgusting and demaoguic and you can't tell me that you would apply the law the same way as written and keep pulling on threads to make it stand if you can't switch the actors and scenarios around. All you can do is get a sentence and a jury decision, but the people know what is just versus what is argued by lawyers and motivists for fascism.

32

Unfortunately, the little twerp seems to have a perfectly adequate self-defense case.

His acquittal, and his lionization by the radical right, will further warp his warped little mind, and this won't be the last we hear of him. He may run out his string of notorious appearances until he's older than Ammon Bundy.

33

@27, Probably not, unless you can say they are pushing you in a way that credibly threatens you life, like into a fire for example. If they shove you and that's it, then no, you can't respond with deadly force and claim self-defense, at least not successfully.

Of course, if they are trying to hit you with a deadly weapon, pointing pistols at you, or trying to take away your weapon and possibly shoot you with it, then yes, if you shoot them, you have a good chance at saying it was self-defense. This is certainly what Rittenhouse's lawyers will argue. Looking at the video, there was a lot more than just a shove going on. This will likely end up being decided by a jury who will have opposing attorneys present cases to them in front of a judge. Whoever thought of this system instead of deciding such things on the internet may have been onto something. He might get off, he might not, I'm personally happy to let a jury decide or have the various attorneys involved work out a deal based on the evidence. It's not perfect, but then nothing is once people get involved.

35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqskSnseE

38

@37. No, judges are the ones who do that on state and federal circuit, appeals, and supreme courts. And it is those judges, who in many states are appointed or run on party line and who people have no idea who they are, who get to make the choices on which statute to apply based on whichever lobbyist funneled their shitty filed bill to the member who was appointed by the speaker to the criminal justice and procedure committee, and even then the judge can use infinite discretion based on their own prejudices or gut feeling to give a privileged white man on a swim team 6 months for rape and a black man ten years for allegedly stealing a backpack.

39

@27 - be sure you bring your AK-47 or AR-15 or something even bigger with you. If there's no gun for the protesters to try & take away from you, you would not be able to claim self-defense a la Rittenhouse. Isn't the system great?

41

kallipugos @23, I had about the same reaction to Kerry being named to that post. Could there be a pick that more strongly signals, "When it comes to climate change, nothing's going to change"? Can you say sinecure?

43

So if Trump's cops push me because I'm in the road exercising my first amendment right to assemble and petition, and they are armed but cover their badges and may simply be a bunch of cosplaying "patriots" in camo, does that give me the right to self defense and to stand my ground if one of them checks me in the face with a nightstick and knocks my tooth out because someone on a megaphone says "Officers are taking legal action?" At what point do these droogs in cop suits become immune from prosecution and take my right of self-defense away? Because some law is written somewhere that cannot be changed? And your entire argument is that might makes right so change the law. It's not about who pays for what law to be passed, it's about knowing the difference between right and wrong.

44

Whether or not rittenshit's attorneys can argue self defense isn't the point. They can present any defense they choose.
The issue is the way the right wing will distort fact to make their criminal behavior seem acceptable.
Kyle Rittenhouse, a fleeing felon, has the right to defend himself according to right wing media.
Ahmaud Arbery is murdered, and two white men that killed him claimed they were justified in murdering him because they suspected him of trespassing. Right wing media backs them up.

Right-wing media convinced that kid to murder people.
When the fuck are we going to hold them responsible?

48

Law and unlawful and Constitutional and Unconstitutional are all derived from the fundamental belief in justice, which is at its core right and wrong. It is not about morality, it is about ensuring that the blessings of liberty and the inalienable rights of humans are meted out without regard to personal prejudice and monetary interests. And at some point you have to decide which laws you are interested in enforcing for whom so that you can justify applying the law in a scenario that would have never occurred if the law was followed in the first place.

49

@47. So if the voters pass laws to authorize the Holocaust, that's on the voters irrespective of right and wrong. So if the voters permit slavery, that's on the voters irrespective of morality. Irrespective of the Constitution and spirit of the law. It's all literal and sacrosanct because as we all know laws are passed in a bubble of purity and for no other purpose than to represent the needs of the electorate, and because as instruments of the law we put toadies and cronies above common sense whenever the vulnerable, poor, and disenfranchies suffer the consequences of tyrrany.

52

You can quote me statutes and municipal codes and cite any number of provisions passed by legislators who largely have no idea what they are talking about because they change hands every few years and get shuffled like cards while playing politics and peddling propaganda and pandering and ass kissing because wealthy special interests decide they can get their agenda designed to profit from the vulnerable on the books. It all boils down to how much and how long people pay. And what constitutes what class. And what deals can be made by the accused. And what loopholes can be codified and exploited to shield those who can pay.

Take the Trump court cases for instance. You only have so long to live to see reality take hold, but you can hold shit up in court and rely on "the law" all day while people die waiting for relief and action. That shit needs to end and we the people deserve better. There is such a thing as the right way to do things, and if you have to dig up a bunch of bullshit-encrusted bullshit slathered in bullshit sauce to bamboozle some random pre-screened dupes then you aren't paying attention to what really matters.

54

@53. Well, that's really been debated since Aristotle and continues to this day. You can talk about natural law and divine law and all that good stuff, but the enlightenment thinkers who inspired the founders made a pretty clear and compelling case in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as to what justice is. And yes, we are just humans, but we have largely corrupted the pursuit of truth and justice for its own sake in America in favor of a broken system that enriches the few at the expense of the many, which is the opposite of what I was taught our country was founded for.

56

@55. "A well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny." But as we fail to invest in public education, put hair-brained conspiracy on par with good science (thereby invalidating it as a false equivalency), peddle untruths and confirmation bias and whatever we are studied to make us tic like rats and cages, and give a global aristocracy the handles to the marionettes in congress who push their agenda while drenching the masses with beer and propaganda, we are ever more a well-amused audience of suckers and dullards and chumps saluting a flag that each day loses its meaning so long as good people fail to stand up to those who pervert its meaning for their own benefit.

58

Truth is based on the aggregate of all observation, a continual approximation of reality based first on the limits of the senses of humans, and then on the limits of our technology which is modeled off of all other life that adapts to its environment in myriad ways that we assimilate and manifest as technology. The only truth is that we cannot ever grasp it fully, but we can approximate it such that we can reliably experiment with it and have consistent results that are predicted. While there is no end to the science, there is a central mean to most trials that approximate existential truth like an asymptotic line to a limit. We cannot take that massive history of experimentation and refinement and cast it aside by denying the struggles and incredibly body of work, the shoulders of giants we stand on, so that we can hold flat earth and anti vaccination and essentially 1984 trumpism and relativism and alternative facts on the same scale. The law works in largely the same way, but once it is corrupted by special interests and racism and motivism and anything but a neutral third party, it loses its foothold and foundation and becomes purely subjective whimsical and meaningless nonsense.

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed corporations." ~ Thomas Jefferson. And so we are there unless the love of truth and justice, the ever more perfect union if you will, surrenders to greed and instant gratification. And that involves me being wrong too, but I believe in what I believe because I am aware of where we have been and where we are going.

59

@9 - Except they reasonably believed they were attempting to apprehend a murder suspect, which they have the right to do. The even have a right to use force, although I don't know WI law well enough to know if they can use deadly force against an armed fleeing suspect. I know TX law on this, and there they could, but every state varies. I believe WI may be a "retreat" state. Too lazy to look it up.

Of course, if it's determined that Rittenhouse's first shooting was justified (distinct possibility), then it gets muddy. He can then defend himself from what are essentially armed accomplices to the first victim...but they still are justified in the moment in believing they're apprehending a murder suspect. Messy.

And you're correct, whether his purchase/possession of the gun was lawful or not, it's immaterial to a self-defense claim. It's entirely possible he could get off on the shootings and get convicted of weapon violations. In fact, that's what I suspect will happen.

@8 - That's if his parents have any assets to surrender, of course. It's the whole blood from a turnip thing. Many laws protect your primary residence and means of conveyance from lawsuit settlements, so they may struggle in the years ahead but not to a degree that will bring any satisfaction to the victims' families.

60

The only snowy owl I've ever seen was on a $50 Canadian bill.

61

Michigan certified for Biden.

62

isn't it time for Bess to go back to brunch yet?

63

@62 He has make at least five more alarmist concern trolling fallacies and baseless claims before he can punch out for the day. He's got a quota!

64

Fucking finally.

GSA tells Biden that transition can formally begin

The General Services Administration has informed President-elect Joe Biden that the Trump administration is ready to begin the formal transition process, according to a letter from Administrator Emily Murphy sent Monday afternoon and obtained by CNN.

https://www.channel3000.com/report-gsa-tells-biden-that-transition-can-formally-begin/

65

One thing everyone here claiming Rittenhouse was defending himself seems to be forgetting is that it's all on video (including the first murder) and that Rittenhouse was interviewed and filmed by a reporter prior to his murder spree and he lied to the reporter, stating he was an EMT (he is not) and the reporter noted that Rittenhouse clearly did not know how to properly handle the weapon he was handling. But I guess we'll wait and see if white privilege and right wing millionaires get Rittenhouse off or if he will go to prison for life. Only time will tell.

66

@65

Most of the "people" arguing for Rittenhouse here are Facts2Support sock puppet accounts.

Garb, it's admirable of you to go toe-to-toe with this dude, but he'll never budge.

67

@65 It all being on video is why I think he will successfully be able to argue self defense. My initial bias was to assume he was another rightwing terrorist who went on a shooting spree. Upon watching the videos I had to admit that his being convicted of murder seems unlikely.

68

Fuck you, Rudy Guiliani! You and the LO$ER-in-Chief, ad nauseum are going DOWN.
Orange suits you. Rot in pri$on, fuckers.

@14 & @65 xina: Agreed and seconded. I feel just sick about the idea of Rittenhouse getting off the hook, the Adam Lanza Sandy Hook massacre, and all other mass shootings.

@64 xina HOORAY! Finally is right. Obviously an asymptomatic White Trash House aide stuck an industrial-sized nookie in Trumpty Dumpty's big, ugly mouth. He must be strapped to bedposts, gagged and bound at this point. I am waiting for the day when Trumpty Dumpty is dragged out, kicking and screaming like Ethel Merman. I wish Buddy Hackett was still alive---he could throw a banana peel.

70

no
but
Fax3
surely is.