Congressional Democrats reel over Rittenhouse acquittal, call for DOJ review, and claim 'white supremacy' | Washington Examiner
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Congressional Democrats' celebration of passing the Build Back Better social spending bill in the House was cut short on Friday by a Wisconsin jury acquitting teenager Kyle Rittenhouse of all criminal charges brought after he shot three people and killed two in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
From calls for the Department of Justice to review the case to calling for new gun laws to claiming that the verdict "protects white supremacy" and is "incitement," Democrats across the left-wing spectrum reeled at the result.
RITTENHOUSE NOT GUILTY ON ALL FIVE CRIMINAL CHARGES
New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called on the Department of Justice to review the case.
"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," Nadler said in a tweet .
Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Joyce Beatty called the result "unconscionable," calling for criminal justice reform and gun reform legislation in a statement .
The Democratic members took a far different approach than President Joe Biden, who called on those angry at the verdict to "acknowledge that the jury has spoken."
Missouri Rep. Cori Bush accused the judge, the jury, and the defendant of being "white supremacy in action."
The judge. The jury. The defendant.
It's white supremacy in action.
This system isn't built to hold white supremacists accountable. It's why Black and brown folks are brutalized and put in cages while white supremacist murderers walk free.
I'm hurt. I'm angry. I'm heartbroken.
— Cori Bush (@CoriBush) November 19, 2021
At least one statement , from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Sean Patrick Maloney, contained factual inaccuracies.
"It's disgusting and disturbing that someone was able to carry a loaded assault rifle into a protest against the unjust killing of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man, and take the lives of two people and injure another — and face absolutely no consequences," Maloney said.
The DCCC later corrected the statement.
Blake was paralyzed, not killed, and admitted that he had a knife before a police officer shot him in the back.
Far-left members of the "Squad" had some of the harshest criticism of the verdict.
"Our justice system is broken. It protects white supremacy. The two people who were killed deserved justice and so did our communities who continue be targeted with violence like this," tweeted Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "This painful verdict sends a horrifying message that bringing violence to a protest for racial justice is acceptable. It's incitement, not justice."
"Racism & white supremacy remain the bedrock of our legal system," tweeted Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley.
There are two justice systems in America. It's time to dismantle systemic racism & fundamentally transform our broken justice system.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) November 19, 2021
What we are witnessing is a system functioning as designed and protecting those it was designed for.
My heart still breaks for the communities and families whose grief now compounds, and the countless others who will be denied and deprived in similar scenes across the country.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 19, 2021
I'm heartbroken. If we're ever going to tackle racial injustice in America, we have to admit our justice system isn't working for Black, brown and Indigenous people.
Then, we have to transform it. It won't be easy but I'm committed to organizing alongside you to make it happen.
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) November 19, 2021
Kyle Rittenhouse is living proof that white tears can still forestall justice.
A murderer is once again walking free today — our system is terribly broken. https://t.co/3FKF4c4R3t
— Adriano Espaillat (@RepEspaillat) November 19, 2021
Tags
Who is online
414 visitors
For Chrissakes, he had a fair trial, and he won. Now people demand investigations, declare that the system is broken or that otherwise something improper happened? WTF?!
How is this any different than Trump or his supporters insisting that the election was fraudulent? These same people called that a "coup" and an "insurrection." They said Trump was destroying faith in a good system without any evidence (and I don't disagree with that part).
Now these same people want to say the same shit about our justice system because they didn't like the outcome of one fucking trial. Just like in 2016 when the only way Clinton could have lost was because Trump somehow got Russia to fix the election. It's all bullshit.
This shit has to stop. Grown people who are public officials have to stop shitting on the system they have sworn to protect and defend just because they sometimes don't like what it produces.
It won't because, in my opinion, they are intentionally trying to destroy the system that is based on law. It prevents them from recreating America into the country they want it to be. They wish to rule by narrative, not law.
What they want is for just about everything to be Illegal and for Prosecution to be Discretional. In that way they get their two tier justice system with the power to persecute their enemies and protect their useful idiots (at least as long as they're useful). The Right of Self Defense, the Right to Defend Oneself, Ones Family, and Property is a huge roadblock to their dream of a Left Wing Totalitarian Paradise.
Im more interested in hearing what they think that the feds can charge him with that hasnt already been thought of and has NOT been determined to be a state jurisdictional issue .....
Well, they're trying to make it about transporting a firearm across state lines.
The problem with this approach is that it's not against the law to carry a firearm across state lines unless it's for an illegal purpose.
And "looking for trouble" is not a legal term and it's not an illegal purpose. It's hard to imagine a more vague accusation than "looking for trouble."
Furthermore, even if it were illegal (and I must state again that it's not) to transport a firearm across state lines, the evidence at trial - including police evidence - was that he did not have possession of the weapon when he crossed state lines. So the whole approach is moot on three counts.
and it was testified to in court , that he never did transport a firearm across any state lines as you said , but if thats what they are going for , good to see them finally think borders count for something .
Good question, there is no race hate charge they can bring the four that attacked him were the same race, Self Defense did away with most civil rights issues unless the feds want to claim rioting and threatening to kill someone are civil rights, they can't make the argument that the riots were peaceful protests, not in a court of law based upon facts and evidence...
The should be doing exactly what Obama did with Zimmerman, which was Biden's first comment, accept the jury's verdict and get on with life...
his handlers coming out with claiming he sits on the opposite side of that is either a serious case of people saying for him what THEY thought he should say, (which reveals a real issue of not being in control) or he has a bunch of loose cannons around him who could care less that he is the boss... in that case they should be fired...
Just the ideal of them thinking about a way to get around the constitution when it comes to a jury verdict is scary DAMNED scary...
It also is revealing of where the government really stands concerning the rights guarenteed to the citizens by the constitution...
Boy, it sure is. I could hardly believe Nadler said it. The message I received from it is that if a verdict displeases whoever happens to hold power at the moment the government will take steps to make it what they want if they can. This really does scare the crap out of me.
actually , jumpkick dude the kungfu man , was black.
Wow. Change the words "a verdict" to "an election"...
/s
sarcasm noted , but use either word and i still dont approve of it . remember i never voted for nor ever will vote for the oversized manchild , i have stated so in the past , but in the same respect the otherside has not put forth anyone i voted for either .
True, my friend, but still no race hate on Kyles part, he was only defending himself from a hate attack... and karate jump kick dude was the attacker black or white... they would have more luck charging him with a hate crime...
LOL and that might still happen , my understanding is he would not testify unless he got immunity , and a drunk driving charge and a domestic abuse case against him , went away ....
No brother it won't happen.. He is a black man, and if we believe all the BLM hyperbole, Blacks aren't capable of hating, only whites can hate...
your likely right , but for some reason i keep picturing that scene from Elf , and want to say to some , such as BLM and others you sit on a throne of lies .....
Normally, 'guns', 'racism', or a mix would bring 300 comments in a flash but it looks like a sane, reasonable majority see through the politicians' firebombing the news. I don't see Arbery's case working out anything like this - then the mindless will be pacified.
well i have been catching up on the aubrey case now that the ritterhouse case is over , and my thoughts are , those guys are going to jail from what i have seen and heard . and they deserve to in my weighing of the evidence presented .
what i am seeing is what was claimed by the prosecution in the ritterhouse case , actually does apply in the aubrey case , so the ritterhouse prosecution simply had the wrong case .
jury trial , those are never a slam dunk.....