Rittenhouse, in the broader sense, is about legality today

... and the chance of a fair trial.  Rather than look at the Rittenhouse trial itself in America, this just looks at the implications and what it says about the rule of law.  That applies to us as well.

Let's start with an equally ridiculous farce from some time back:

https://youtu.be/TDvKFO1k0bs

Now how the Rittenhouse trial has disintegrated:

At the Rittenhouse trial, there was no verdict, but there was a period of drama over the HD drone video file the prosecution was supposed to share with the defense, but which ended up being a blurry lower resolution file when they delivered it. It was a pretty stunning interchange.


The prosecution argued they sent the same file the State PD crime lab had, an 11mb file, over to the defense using email, and the defense’s email program must have spontaneously compressed it to 4 mb.

The defense assistant who handled the file said she received a file with a short filename, like drone.mov, from the prosecution, and it was clearly a different file from the State PD’s file because the State PD’s filename was a long string of numbers and letters, as the filename was made by the drone, automatically with the GPS location, time, resolution settings, and so on embedded in the file name, so there was no way it was the same file, and no way her email spontaneously compressed it. She also showed the two files had different create dates in the metadata.

The judge was not pleased, especially since jurors had just asked for the high resolution file which the defense hadn’t had access to, so the trial might hinge on it. He said said everyone involved is going to have to go under oath, and he is going to have to bring in specialists to get to the bottom of it, since it is possibly grounds for a mistrial with prejudice if Kyle were to be convicted on that footage and the defense had not been provided it. No link, because it was in the trial footage.

Also the company which shot the drone footage, dissolved itself and disappeared 17 days after the riots, and the owner initially claimed to not have any video and refused to identify himself to prosecutors, before the video was delivered later to the prosecutors by someone else.

The defense should have subpoenaed FBI for all radio traffic intercepts they captured that night, as well as all Stingray data, because that FBI aviation unit was scooping up everything on the airwaves as it was filming. And even if it was encrypted, they would decrypt it and make transcripts. If Kyle was set up, that would have changed the whole tenor of the case, and I will bet those intercepts would show it. Although admittedly, FBI would never have complied with the subpoena, and would have just destroyed it all. But that might have been useful.

From the video, the drone operator appeared to have launched the drone moments before Rosenbaum launched his ambush, and they flew the drone right to where the ambush was going to happen, and filmed exactly where Kyle was being chased by Rosenbaum and shot him. So that means when Kyle was attacked, you had an FBI plane running thermal, an FBI drone, and this private drone all videoing the exact same spot at the exact moment Kyle was attacked.

Our Julia has for years been pointing out the ridiculousness of various proceedings and the state of the law in the UK and it does seem as if this is endemic across the west - let's not even start on the death cult countries and the CCP and USSR.

As I pointed out at another place, when we get quite unclear rules, not equally applied and with seeming prejudice towards one side and against another, as a matter of course, then whither justice?  The example I gave was:

This was illustrated in a court case involving grooming rapists [now convicted, so no longer alleged].  The BBC reported on it but were then informed 'no further'.  Tommy Robinson took the BBC report which had gone out and commented on it in a YT.  No one had informed him of the injunction, only insiders had been informed.  The result readers know full well.

The prosecution over there has clearly played fast and loose with the rules, as the proWoke side do in all matters, from Fast and Furious in Obama/Holder days through to so many things going on today but the issue there is if an independent arbiter steps in and says no way, this is not judicial, then the Woke house of cards falls to the ground.

In fact, the introduction of such an issue might be seen in the way Trump was elected in 2016, despite all measures and skulduggery by the Power - once they're actually caught out, it's game over.  The only way they can then proceed, the Woke crims, is all out attack with zero regard for law.  Saving their backsides is the only rule.

I ran a film called Out of the Past elsewhere and it's a classic case of the same principle - all sorts of subterfuge and deals and threats and killings go on in order to save the backsides of the miscreants and any caught up in that losers' game goes down as well. 

The reason this particular trial is of such importance is that the whole Woke edifice is on trial here, the whole wholly unfair way in which the law is applied in the Woke west now.

In the end, it comes down to national will, the will of people in the west.  As long as they go along with the whole ethics-free Wokery, the miscreants survive.  Once sufficient people have redpilled though, it starts to look quite iffy for those who've poured billions into our enslavement and the making persona non grata various groups in society.