Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Data Shows Glenn Greenwald's Shift To The Right | w/ Eoin Higgins" video.

I honestly don't know why anyone would have a hate boner for him the way Dore does. It just comes off as incredibly dumb and weird. Sure the guy is a boring analyst & he's better as a writer/journalist than a commentator, but he's done some good 1st-hand reporting in the past.
13
@AmazingMayzie I don't know why anyone would defend Rittenhouse when he basically evaded justice entirely. He was initially given charges that were too extreme to prove, his MAGA uncle judge basically ensured he was cleared from even reckless public endangerment, a charge he 100% should've gone down for (he should've been charged with at least Involuntary Manslaughter since he killed 2 people and was absolutely endangering the public with his illegal firearm from another state), and then the prosecution wasn't even allowed to make their case in addition to the jury being hand picked by the defense & biased judge. It's one of the biggest examples of a broken criminal justice system and courtroom in the 21st century to date. All those people have brain worms if they're defending Rittenhouse & his right-wing backers of playing the system and then being offered political internships right after. The whole thing actually disturbs me.
8
@Badatallthis Stuff He literally killed two people before the third guy with a pistol & medkit was even paying attention to him. Shooting the guy with the pistol is the least of the issue considering that guy actually fucking survived. You can analyze the situation all you want, but the reality of it all is that some 17 year old kid went to a crowded area with an illegal AR15 from across state lines when he wasn't supposed to be there. It's textbook public endangerment and then to top it off he killed 2 people, so it's upgraded to Involuntary Manslaughter. Trying to prove 1st Degree Murder is part of the farce that was his trial, he was given charges that the judge and others knew wouldn't stick - cops who shoot black teenagers do it all the time and get off scot-free. The hint that it was all a complete farce to begin with though is that he wasn't even given reckless endangerment, there's no defending that shit when he basically instigated the entire situation by illegally being there with an illegal firearm.
8
@Christopher Bradley You do realize that Rittenhouse wasn't even given a "just" or fair trial in the slightest. The Trump-supporter judge coddled him every step of the way and wouldn't even let the prosecution make their case. That's an extremely terrible example to support your argument. Most leftists just wanted him tried in an unbiased court of law, one that was actually based on "fact and legal precedent", not the complete farce that happened in reality.
7
@Badatallthis Stuff And pretty much everything you just said is bullshit because at the end of it all, it's a minor with an illegal AR-15 that it clearly took it out into a crowded area to start some shit. There's dialogue from him only a few days before saying he wish he had his assault rifle to shoot people [he politically disagreed with] at CVS in addition to having a history of violence where he recently beat up some girl at his school. That's textbook school shooter mentality and behavior. You're painting him as some hero for "protecting" anonymous property on the street, but it's beyond obvious he went there because he's a pissed off 17-year old with a gun & extremely weighted political views driving him to show up to a political protest with an illegal assault rifle. Also, "Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard" - yes, a fucking SKATEBOARD, not a bat, not a gun, some kid had a skateboard and used what he had in his hands to try to unarm a kid who was, at the time, recklessly shooting into a crowd of people. You don't have to think of the kid as a hero or whatever (I'm not trying to paint one side or another as heroic like you), but it's a kid with a fucking skateboard versus a kid with one of the most dangerous firearms you can purchase in the entire world. That's such a bullshit comparison and you know it. I don't care what happened with the other two people, but Rittenhouse should've gone down for Involuntary Manslaughter against Huber, a fucking kid with a skateboard and fuck you if you think it's "heroic" to gun down people with a board with wheels that even 10 year olds use to play with. You gift a skateboard to your 8 year nephew, whereas an AR-15 is an extremely deadly assault rifle you can only purchase in America after going through training and getting a gun license, something Rittenhouse didn't have for his assault rifle. I like how you and every other person just glosses over that fact as if it's not relevant and we don't have gun laws for a reason - that fact alone qualifies him for reckless public endangerment (knowingly going to a crowded area with an illegal assault rifle) and then it gets upgraded to Involuntary Manslaughter when you kill 2 people while recklessly endangering the public. This shit isn't hard to figure out, but I'm sure your jumping for sicko joy that the whole trial was a farce and the judge had incredibly extreme political leanings that led him to fix the whole court case from start to finish. Congrats on thinking you achieved some type of "victory", oh, and two people are dead. Another day in America.
6
@Badatallthis Stuff I did watch the trial, and I've been saying this whole time that even if you want to chop up what he did as "self defense" (and I hard disagree about that in the case of Huber who was "armed" with an effing skateboard), he's still obviously guilty for reckless endangerment. Even conservatives I know have admitted he should've been guilty of reckless endangerment because what he did was stupid AND reckless* - going there with an illegal AR-15. Usually when you're guilty of reckless endangerment and people are killed due to your recklessness it gets upgraded to Involuntary Manslaughter. So yes, even IF you come to the conclusion it was self-defense, he's still guilty of, in layman's terms, being a massive dumbass who should've never been there and should've never had an illegal firearm. Claiming he did nothing wrong at all when 2 people are dead, fired his gun into a crowd, & considering that situation wouldn't have happened if he wasn't there with his illegal gun is, in my opinion, just ignoring basic common sense. And EVEN IF you want to say he's not guilty of any of those charges at all, even reckless endangerment, it's still a verifiable FACT he has an illegal firearm that he used to shoot 3 people and kill 2 people, so even then, you have possession and use of a illegal firearm and whatever comes along with that when you use your illegal firearm to kill two people. So CLEARLY he's doing something wrong in that equation and simply ignoring that is just ignoring reality.
4
@Addamo Involuntary Manslaughter is what they call it, you know, considering 2 people were killed and the only other person who had a gun in the equation was the final person who was only one shot but survived. The kid with a skateboard deserved justice and his parents were served a shit sandwich by a MAGA judge who had more political leanings involved in that case than any other person in that courtroom. I'm no lawyer, but it's pretty clear that Reckless endangerment + multiple deaths = Involuntary Manslaughter
3
I used to be a big Greenwald supporter at one point & some of his past actions (especially his work in Brazil) has earned him a good amount of leeway & benefit of the doubt, but the guy has changed a lot and said some extremely questionable shit in the past few years. It seems like your unwilling to even acknowledge his faults or why it might not be particularly okay to repeatedly go on Fox News just to feed into their (propagandist) narrative without giving any pushback. If it were anyone else, I'm sure you would have an easier time seeing it as problematic, but no matter who it is, it doesn't change the issue at hand - it just makes it harder to accept.
3
@Badatallthis Stuff "According to the letter of the law, it was legal, the judge agreed" - A minor in possession of a deadly firearm is a law all over America, your not going to convince people that's not the law just because a crooked judge passed some bullshit exemption because the judge was a MAGA supporter (literally had a MAGA ringtone). The judge was running interference for Rittenhouse every step of the way hamstringed the prosecution, limited the scope of the case to fit his own political views, and ensured "an exemption for long-barreled rifles" protected Rittenhouse, a complete bullshit reading of the law that doesn't fit Wisconsin law at all. There can be "possible" exemptions for shotguns and rifles for hunting** in Wisconsin, and somehow the judge misconstrued the law to make recklessly taking an AR-15 assault rifle to a politically charged protest as "hunting" and then reconstituted the AR-15 as a "hunting rifle" by classifying it as a "long-barreled rifle". Complete and utter bullshit and a disgrace to the law of this country. It just reinforces my point that the trial was absolute garbage & should be labeled a mistrial due to the judge's obvious bias and weighted every part of the trial from start to finish, something that is entirely within reason considering we just had a Georgia case with Ahmaud Arbery where the shooters claiming self-defense (one an ex-cop) were working the system for 2 years to get the case thrown out because a district judge was extremely biased towards the defendant.
3
@garyluciani370 The grifter stuff is being said a lot recently because it seems to be happening an awful lot lately. No one is even debating whether Tulsi Gabbard is doing anything but a Dave Rubin impression at the moment. She's going on Fox News constantly as the "one reasonable Democrat on Fox" and sounding like straight Pat Robertson. People see Glenn Greenwald going on Fox News just to feed into the Fox narrative as well with little to zero pushback on the issues and it tends to ring alarm bells for people already fully aware of Tulsi's status.
2
@Badatallthis Stuff You're fucking delusional man. You said you watched the trial? Did you watch with a blindfold and earplugs? The judge was adversarial against the prosecution literally throughout the trial and nearly acted as a second defense. I already explained how he "interpreted" the law by using an exemption reserved for 17 year olds hunting with hunting rifles (not sure how you're doing mental gymnastics on that one), but he additionally gave what can only be described as preferential treatment when he refused to issue an arrest warrant or carry out action against Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse violated his own bail, wouldn't allow the prosecution to refer to the 2 people murdered as "victims" and said they (i.e. the 2 people murdered, one a kid with a skateboard) should be called either "rioters" or "looters" when there was no evidence of them doing either of those things, in addition: "Schroeder announced that he [would] not allow prosecutors to introduce evidence of Rittenhouse’s prior disposition to shoot people to death. There is video of Rittenhouse watching from a car as people leave a CVS: He calls them “looters” and says that he wishes he had a gun to shoot them. The video was taken in August 2020, about two and a half weeks before Rittenhouse shot up the streets of Kenosha. There are also photos from January 2020 of Rittenhouse posing with members of the Proud Boys. Both the video and the photos will be excluded, but the police patting Rittenhouse on the head will be included." He also hamstringed the prosecution more by not letting them show Rittenhouse had a history of violence when he beat up some girl in his town. All of these are relevant to show that Rittenhouse purposefully went to Kenosha with his illegal AR-15 (according to the actual fucking law not interpreted like Rittenhouse is going buck hunting at a BLM protest with a 22 rifle) to clearly seek out trouble. We allow Americans to have guns in this country to protect their families at night in their homes, not go out seeking people to shoot in crowded streets. I don't know why you think this shit is okay, but we're obviously not going to agree on any of this shit, and not for political reasons, but because the law was warped to fit the judges personal biases and Rittenhouse clearly drove across state lines as a minor with an assault rifle to play vigilante and ended up murdering two people just by being there that night (something that wouldn't have happened otherwise i.e. he recklessly endangered the public and everyone on that street that night). It's weird, because I'm not even arguing for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder for Rittenhouse, all I'm saying is that he recklessly endangered people by being an extremely dumb fuck 17 year old and going out there with one of the deadliest firearms you can buy in America or anywhere else in the world. As I said, I know conservatives who agree with this milquetoast and obvious statement, but for some reason, you're over here arguing like he didn't do anything wrong in the slightest despite 3 people shot on a crowded street and 2 murdered by his hand. Anyways, I'm tired as fuck of this conversation. Nothing I'm saying is getting through and we're just going in circles now. You seem to have no morals regarding this topic so there's really no point to this anymore.
2
@Badatallthis Stuff I don't know why I'm even responding again since you're just repeating the same shit you said before, but you're completely ignoring the obvious bias of the judge that nearly everyone sees and everyone admits, even many conservatives (the ones who aren't obsessed with the case, same ones who think Rittenhouse is just an idiot and should've been guilty of endangerment), I've also given countless reasons for why the judge acted as a second defense for Rittenhouse, and wow he was appointed by a Democrat? Good thing Democrats have never done anything either stupid nor deeply conservative before, just ask Joe Manchin. You seem to think all Democrats are Leftists or liberals which is just beyond hilarious since the majority are actually neoliberal corporatists or just straight conservative Dems. Either way, whoever appointed him in the past seems irrelevant to his actual actions and impact on the case, things that YOU are completely ignoring, so I ask you why do you not think it's relevant to point out the personal reasons why Rittenhouse went to Kenosha? There's video of him 2 weeks beforehand talking about shooting "looters" at CVS with his AR-15. That's a strange thing to say for a boy you seem to think had the sole intention of going to Kenosha to "protect dumpster fires". He beat up a girl that year in his town, why is that not relevant? He has a history of violence, not helping his community like you seem to think. You need his personal history to illustrate his intentions for going to Kenosha with an AR-15 despite being underage and not legally allowed to carry that (because he's not hunting with a hunting rifle, another point you seem to ignore cause the judge clearly misused the law to side with the defense's bogus claim). Again, I'm just repeating arguments too now, which is why I said this conversation is pointless. I don't think your arguments are valid because I don't consider a "skateboard" a deadly weapon and I don't consider it a warrant to kill a kid. Some 18 year old kid hits you with a skateboard because you're shooting an assault rifle off in the street (at people), you're going to shoot and kill him? That's disgusting and sick. That's why I said you have no morals on this. A skateboard does not warrant a citizen's execution, another reason I compared it to the Ahmaud Arbery case. However, even you put ALL that aside, Rittenhouse's obvious intentions, having a history of violence, hanging out with the violent group Proud Boys, literally saying on video he wanted to mow down "looters" with his AR-15, etc., all point to the clear fact he went there not because he felt he had some duty as a 17 year old kid with an illegal gun (and even if I grant you the judge's Bullshit "hunting rifle while hunting" exemption, it was STILL ILLEGAL in Illinois, the state he lives before he crossed over state lines, so he went there fully knowing he was leaving with an illegal gun), but because this kid grabbed his gun and was looking for trouble, and he found it. That's wanton reckless endangerment, a charge he 100% should've been found guilty of, but lucky for him he got a crooked judge and a crooked trial. I'm done talking about this, it's just pissing me off knowing that conservative mainstream has now stooped so low to congratulate and do hero worship for kids who kill multiple people, violate gun laws in the process, and then people like you just go right along with it. This shit only happens in America pal, anywhere else in the world, this kid would get prison for a long time.
2
@Badatallthis Stuff I see your just copy and pasting your responses now to watch the trial, which I have. Maybe you should recommend that people read up on the case and what happened behind the scenes with the prosecution, defense and most importantly the judge. While you're at it, read up on it yourself since you just ignore everything I've said about it even when I'm giving direct quotes about the actions the judge took. Simply watching the trial, which was heavily influenced by the judge, limited in scope based on the judge's political bias & had the prosecution hamstringed, only gives a limited and biased perspective on the case. Again, I hope it eventually gets labeled a mistrial and is passed up to a higher court with an impartial judge. When the criminal justice system is broken because people put their thumbs on the scale, our whole society suffers for it. Rittenhouse deserves reckless endangerment at the least and more justly should have Involuntary Manslaughter for his extremely irresponsible actions that led to him firing an assault rifle into a crowd of people. That shit shouldn't fly, especially when you kill two people who are entirely unarmed and have a plastic bag and a skateboard. It's absolutely disgraceful how this farce of a trial played out & even worse that the murdering 18 year old is now getting hero worship from sickos on the far right.
2
@Badatallthis Stuff Yes evidently I understood that, which is why I added that people should not just watch the trial through a keyhole like you did and like you're insisting, but research just what happened during the trial off camera. Based on external events, the judge was crooked or at the very least just operating from a position of extreme bias. Usually in those cases the judge passes it onto a different district court, which again, is why I was earlier comparing it to the Ahmaud Arbery case, because they went through 2 different partisan judges that had already decided to let the defendants off before the trial even began, until it was finally passed higher up and Arbery's mother finally got a fair trial for the shooters (all of them guilty of most to all charges in the end, whereas the first judge tried to throw the case out). So yes, the judge matters a great deal, justice is not blind when you have someone with extreme prejudice running a crooked courtroom weighted in every way to favor the defense - people can figure it out to some extent by simply even watching the trial cause of the biased way the judge treats the prosecution vs the defense, but to understand the depth of his slanted actions, you'd need to read about his actions behind the scenes.
2
@mattwalker7604 From the way this other guy has been talking to me, you'd think I was arguing for the death penalty, 1st degree homicide or something, but no I was stating that Rittenhouse should've gone down for the reckless endangerment charge, a position that I've heard repeated by even conservatives I know who think that Rittenhouse had room to use self-defense but should've never been there that night with an AR-15 in the first place and essentially put everyone at risk for his actions (I mean he's literally shooting at a crowd with an assault rifle and people don't think there was nothing he could've done differently to avoid that outcome?). The Homicide charges that were leveled against him were too strict, which may or may not have been on purpose since that's the trick a lot of cops pull when they're on the defense for a shooting - serious homicide charges can be incredibly hard to prove and law enforcement and defense attorneys are fully aware of this. In my opinion, he should've easily been found guilty of reckless endangerment of the public and in this case it can be upgraded to Involuntary Manslaughter because 2 people were killed while endangering the public. Maybe that's not possible if he's given self-defense, but he's still firing his weapon into a crowd of people, so I'd say the law is not that finite about the situation (though I still think it's incredibly likely in a higher court against the Alex Huber charge, a kid with a fucking skateboard gunned down with an AR-15, the comparison between the magnitude of their two "weapons" is laughable), but at the very least that reckless endangerment charge being thrown out is just proof that the judge's tampering and prejudice in the courtroom achieved the outcome he wanted and decided on before the trial even began. These types of situations usually result in a mistrial or the case being passed up to a higher court. I said this to the other guy, however it went in one ear and out the other, but, just for one example, the reason the Judge threw out the illegal AR-15 charge was because the judge and defense used an exemption ("possible exemption") under Wisconsin law for minors when hunting with a hunting rifle or shotgun. That type of purposeful misinterpretation of the law just speaks for itself on where the judge stood and how he was nowhere near impartial. But I advise you to look up just how much the judge hamstringed the prosecution behind the scenes. They weren't even allowed to make their case, not allowed to introduce relevant information about Rittenhouse to show why he may have crossed state lines with his AR-15 to go to a crowded protest, weren't allowed to introduce other acts of assault by him and the judge literally wouldn't even let them refer to the 2 people killed as "victims", said they could only be called "rioters" or "looters" when there's no evidence they did any of those things. I mean for fucks sake Rittenhouse was a common associate of the Proud Boys, a group well-known for traveling to politically charged events just to instigate violence and reactions out of people/protesters and then try to turn around and use the law and police to their benefit. It's beyond the pale to say that information is not relevant to this case. In fact, right after he was released, he was found posing with Proud Boys in a bar and flashing a white power symbol, but somehow this isn't relevant to the case? - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/14/kyle-rittenhouse-proud-boys-bar/
2
Probably just overlooked because he doesn't usually do interviews, but it's worth mentioning to him for future content
1
@Addamo There was some incompetence, but part of it was also that they were getting railroaded by the judge. They had relevant information about Rittenhouse's character and were building a case to prove Rittenhouse's bad intentions for going to that protest with an illegal AR-15 despite Rittenhouse and the defense claiming he went under the pretense of "defending property". They had accounts that Rittenhouse had just recently beat up a girl at his school and that he had made online posts and in-person comments about wanting his gun so he could shoot up people that he disagreed with politically. Basically a lot of the signs you usually see from school shooters. The judge disallowed any of it being presented to the jury, so the jury was given a very limited view of the case, the judge made sure they focused mostly on the 3rd person who Rittenhouse shot, who just happened to be the guy who had a pistol and only even noticed Rittenhouse after he had already killed 2 people & was shooting an assault rifle into a crowd. Coincidentally, it was also the only person to survive, whereas the kid with the skateboard deserved justice more than anyone and had parents at the proceeding hoping for their son's killer to see some type of justice. I don't know how anyone can look at that specific victim's case in particular and think Rittenhouse should be cleared of any wrongdoing - he had a fucking skateboard for fucks sake, in my opinion that's on par with shooting a black teenager with a super soaker, except this time it wasn't a cop, it was a 17 year old from another state with an illegal AR-15 and a recent history of violence.
1
@rachelkent3180 Nowhere in my comment did I say people shouldn't go on Fox News. In fact, they SHOULD go on Fox News to challenge the neo- & paleo-conservative viewpoint and Fox's metaphorical news bubble. However, Fox News is a propagandist channel; if you go on their shows, the one thing you shouldn't do is feed into their propaganda and ultra partisanship narrative without giving any pushback aka giving a leftist perspective. I haven't watched all of Greenwald's interviews, but over the past years, I've definitely noticed him going on and agreeing with them more and more & giving less and less of a real Left perspective on the issues. If he's going to go on to agree with Tucker Carlson the whole time about the Democrats being bad and corrupt, then he should at least mention that out of the two parties, they're the only side even trying to make the attempt on things like healthcare, childcare, and gov't reform to help workers and that despite the Democrats always falling short due to their corrupt neoliberal leadership, the Republicans on the other hand are completely void of any sense of helping working class families and are 100% looking out for the interests of the billionaire class and special interests. Not saying things like these (while you're presenting yourself as a Leftist) is just lying by omission, & this goes for all Leftists that make appearances on Fox News, not just Greenwald. It might give you more clout among Carlson and conservatives, but what good is it if all you're doing is feeding into the propaganda that's designed to put the more corrupt politicians back in the driver seat in Washington. Even if these people don't want to outright say the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, they should at least have the decency & integrity to point out just how corrupt the Republicans are in general and not just gloss over that fact to rant about how frustrating the Democrats are when they're too divided and broken to deliver on their promises. This type of omitted rhetoric only works to drive more people to the Republican Party, an outcome that is in no way a solution to any of the working class's problems.
1