Rittenhouse acquitted – but the war continues

Yesterday a jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse of the five charges that still stood against him. But a United States congressman now demands a “review of the case.” That can mean only that Congressman wants to try Kyle Rittenhouse again, on federal charges, over the same facts. Which further illustrates the absolute contempt Democrats now in power pour on the Constitution. And when they do that they forfeit any legitimacy they have, because they violate their oaths of office.

The Rittenhouse verdict

Judge Bruce Schroeder presided over the “taking of the verdict” yesterday morning (19 November). As usual in criminal matters, the court clerk read out five separate acquittals on five separate charges Kyle Rittenhouse faced. (The judge had earlier thrown out a charge of possession of an unlawful weapon. The reason: the weapon the prosecutors exhibited was legal to possess after all.) After the final reading, young Rittenhouse wept and collapsed in his chair at the defense table. Judge Schroeder, for his part, offered his profuse thanks to the jury.

As well he might have! Jury and judge alike faced threats to their lives, and threats of “making blood flow in the streets.” A freelancer working for MSNBC followed the bus conveying the jury to court. After which the judge:

1. announced a criminal referral for the freelancer, and
2. barred MSNBC reporters and other staff from his courtroom for the rest of the trial.

Rittenhouse’ defense team had moved a mistrial with prejudice, after discovering that the prosecution did not cooperate with pretrial discovery. Specifically, they furnished video footage of the events that led to the arrest of Rittenhouse, but of poor quality. The defense discovered that the prosecution had deliberately degraded the video footage they had and kept the crisp, high-resolution original.

Why didn’t the judge grant the motion? Because he wanted the jury to return verdicts of Not Guilty on their own. Which they have now done.

Further jeopardy!

But the story does not end there. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), present Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has called for a review of the case. Why?

This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest.

First Amendment protected protest?!? The “people” to which Chairman Nadler refers, were committing arson and other deliberate property destruction. The three whom Rittenhouse had to shoot, including the two who died, attacked Rittenhouse first. That interesting fact came out in open court from the prosecution’s own witness, that being the surviving “target” of Rittenhouse. And as for his “crossing State lines,” CNAV does not recall Nadler or anyone else who share his politics ever protesting when persons have “crossed state lines” and attacked others without provocation. (The judge even permitted the jury to consider whether Kyle Rittenhouse had provoked the attacks on him. Obviously the judge wanted no second guessing. Sadly, some people will always second-guess.)

And about that weapon: Rittenhouse took possession of it in Kenosha. He did not “cross State lines” with it.

Rep. Mat Gaetz (R-Fla.-1^st) immediately railed on Nadler for calling for the Justice Department to “continue tormenting” Rittenhouse.

Dana Loesch, formerly the spokeswoman for the NRA, decried Nadler’s “insane” posturing, while explaining where his gun came from.

Unconstitutional on its face

Rep. Nadler violates the Constitution on two counts. First, he seeks to place Rittenhouse “twice … in jeopardy” of his liberty. Technically the Constitution (Amendment V) forbids double jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. But courts everywhere have broadened the concept to include double jeopardy of anything.

Second, he violates Amendment VII, which reads in relevant part:

no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

CNAV challenges Rep. Nadler to explain the common law principle that allows such “reviews” of acquittals of private citizens, in private capacities, of criminal charges. This is the “review” of the Simi Valley acquittals all over again, but worse. At least in the Simi Valley case, the policemen involved were just that: law-enforcement officers, agents of the State. As such one holds them to a higher standard of official conduct, in and out of the field.

Kyle Rittenhouse was a volunteer, whom at least three men set upon with the intent to kill him. He fired his own weapon as a last resort. The facts couldn’t be any plainer. So by virtue of what principle of common law dares Rep. Nadler propose reexamining his case?

What should happen next

Kyle Rittenhouse should sue certain media outlets, not only for slander and defamation of character but also for attempting to twist justice to influence a jury against him. That freelancer who followed the jury bus didn’t do that on his own. Nobody is that stupid. Someone as MSNBC surely hinted at doing something like this, and they should pay dearly for it.

And Rep. Nadler? In a perfect world, he would face immediate censure and stripping of his committee assignments, if not outright expulsion from the House. Sadly, his own Party controls the House and likely agrees with what he said.

Which means the only way to stop this kind of egregious violation of the Constitution is with your vote. That, and taking an active part in election administration, as your editor did in the recent Virginia election. That men like Nadler think they can break the Constitution with impunity, further supports the idea that fraud pervades our elections and allows certain people to think the Constitution is no more than an inconvenient scrap of paper.