Image 01 Image 03

Goal Of Rittenhouse Prosecution and Media Manipulation Is To Render “Citizens Not Being Able To Defend Themselves”

Goal Of Rittenhouse Prosecution and Media Manipulation Is To Render “Citizens Not Being Able To Defend Themselves”

My appearance on Chicago’s Morning Answer: “if you can’t defend yourself in those circumstances and the full weight of the state and the full weight of the media is going to come down on you, then we are in a really bad place”

I appeared this morning on Chicago’s Morning Answer radio show with Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson (no relation). I have been on the show many times before, and it’s always a pointed and interesting conversation.

The topic was the Rittenhouse case primarily. At the time, I thought we would have a verdict today, but we don’t. Towards the end there was some discussion of Merrick Garland’s War On Parents towards. You can listen below, I join the conversation at the 1:30 mark. (If video does not load, you can Listen Here.)


(Auto-generated, may contain transcription errors. Time stamps are approximate.)

Dan Proft (01:17):

The claim being made by the media leftists is that if Rittenhouse is acquitted it’s because the judge was in the tank for the defense. That’s the sum total of it for more on this, we’re pleased to be joined again by William Jacobson. He’s a clinical professor of law and director of the securities law clinic at Cornell law school. He’s also the founder of the excellent blog, and he’s president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, Professor Jacobson. Thanks for joining us again.

William Jacobson (01:47):

Thanks for having me

Dan Proft (01:48):

What about what Judge Schroeder had to say about, he was sort of, he didn’t get into too much detail. You have the media’s role in how the public understands this trial.

William Jacobson (02:03):

Well, it’s similar to so many other cases. The media immediately sets a narrative, a narrative which is hostile to the defendant in a highly politicized case. It happened in the George Zimmerman case, and has happened in multiple cases and you can’t get rid of that narrative.

So the narrative is Kyle Rittenhouse is a militia member who crossed state lines with a weapon to shoot peaceful protest is protestors. None of those things are true, other than he did cross the state line. Like that’s some big deal nowadays, but he wasn’t carrying a weapon. The weapon was already in Wisconsin. He was lawfully able to possess it in Wisconsin. That’s why the judge threw out the charge of being a minor in possession. He wasn’t in an militia. Remember there’s certainly no evidence introduced to that. And he didn’t shoot peaceful protestors. He shoot shot three extremely violent people who tried to kill him.

So that media narrative is out there. It will never go away. And that has framed the case for political purposes, that this is white supremacy on trial here. So you have Black Lives Matter protesters out there claiming racism for a white kid who shot three white people. This has nothing to do with race yet. That’s what it’s turned into. And, and because of that, this had become a cause celebre for the left that this kid needs to be convicted. The facts though, show that it was clearly self-defense, I don’t know what’s taking the jury so long. Hopefully it’s not a sign that they’ve, you know, they’re going to convict them because the evidence is just absolutely overwhelming that this was self-defense,

Amy Jacobson (03:44):

But the jurors live in the community obviously. And do you think that they’re afraid of what’s going to happen? You know, what happened the last time with their town burning down and that would cloud their judgment?

William Jacobson (03:56):

Well, they might deny it, but I think it’s hanging over, it’s hanging over just like it was in the prosecution of Derek Chauvin where there were armed troops surrounding the courthouse. How can that not influence a juror where there was, in the George Floyd case, a Congresswoman calling for riots and protests if there’s a not guilty verdict. The same thing is happening here, at least I don’t believe any congressmen have made that claim, but you know, he’s been called a white supremacist by the now-president of the United States. So this has to be hanging on the jurors that they know if there is a not guilty. They come to court, they probably see the protesters outside. They are not sequestered, [there are] protestors outside the courtroom, the courthouse, with bullhorns, they’ve got to hear this, they’ve got to know what’s going to happen. They might say, it’s not going to impact them. But the mere fact that they’d be thinking about it has to have an effective,

Dan Proft (04:55):

…  it seems to me that if Rittenhouse were convicted based on the arguments, as muddled as they were, offered by the prosecution, that would be a serious precedent in diminishing of people’s understanding of self-defense and their likelihood to defend themselves.

William Jacobson (06:04):

I think it’s absolutely true. If you can’t defend yourself when someone’s beating you in the head with the skateboard, if you can’t defend yourself when they’re running at you while you’re on the ground and they lower their Glock pistol towards your head from three feet away, if you can’t defend yourself when someone who’s already that night threatened to kill you, if he caught you alone, and is now reaching for your gun, if you can’t defend yourself in those circumstances and the full weight of the state and the full weight of the media is going to come down on you, then we are in a really bad place.

And I think that’s why the left and the media, which are one in the same, has focused so heavily on this. They do not want people to be able to defend themselves. They want to defund the police. They want to let mobs run the streets and they don’t want citizens to be able to defend themselves. That’s what this case has become.

Dan Proft (07:03):

Lest we forget, you know, former Supreme court justice, John Paul Stevens. It was just a couple of years ago. He wrote an op-ed in New York times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. And of course, that’s the operative position of the entire collection on the left.

William Jacobson (07:18):

That’s what this is all about. And that’s why they’re so heavily focused on it. You don’t see this sort of media attention for other cases that don’t involve self-defense, don’t involve what they perceive to be a racial element. Even though there is none here that’s what this is all about.

This is about citizens not being able to defend themselves because the police are nowhere to be found. They were nowhere to be found during the rioting in Kenosha. They were on the edges. Everybody was left for themselves, and there were violent, violent people like this multiple child rapist Joseph Rosenbaum who got shot when he tried to grab Kyle Rittenhouse’s gun, this violent, violent person who has a long criminal history and was out looking to beat people that night. So those people are allowed to run the street and those people won’t be arrested. But somebody who defends themselves against those criminals is going to get arrested.

And that’s the way the left wants it. They want people intimidated. They want them cowed with fear. They want them to be able to be manipulated. And that’s why this case has become so important.

Amy Jacobson (08:29):

And have you noticed that Rosenbaum’s family and Huebner’s family, they’re not in the courtroom? They’re not talking to reporters say no Rittenhouse killed my child or killed my son or killed my brother. That they’ve remained pretty much silent during this whole process.

William Jacobson (08:44):

Well, you know, everybody’s entitled to the protection of the criminal laws, even a criminal like Rosenbaum, but the world is a better place that, that child rapist, violent person is not in it. And he was killed lawfully. He doesn’t deserve to be killed unlawfully, but he was killed while trying to kill somebody else.

Dan Proft (09:06):

And the other argument that’s been made by op-ed writers of the left, you know, Rittenhouse, he shouldn’t have been there. He had no business being there. Well, uh, first of all, whether he should or shouldn’t have been there is immaterial to whether or not he defended himself under the law, but secondly, so he is not allowed to go to Kenosha and protect private property, but those that descended on Kenosha from all over the country, they’re perfectly within their rights to do so.

William Jacobson (09:37):

That’s where we are in society right now, that looters are more protected than the people who protect property and protect themselves.

Amy Jacobson (09:47):

And I’m so sick of the whole thing, you know, he crossed state lines too. He worked in Kenosha, well, Mount Pleasant at the rec center there as a lifeguard, it’s in his dad lived there. So I, you know, people in New York, don’t, you go to New Jersey a lot, you know, it’s not like it’s a big deal to go 10 minutes away.

William Jacobson (10:04):

No, I live in Rhode Island. I can’t throw a stone without crossing a state line because we’re so small. It’s notion, how hysterical is it that the people who want open borders on the Mexican border, all of the sudden, you know, the sanctity of the border between Illinois and Wisconsin, how ridiculous is this….


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Damn right it’s an attack of lawfare. I’m not sure how much longer we can share a law code with these crazy people.

And most especially not with an AR-15.

smalltownoklahoman | November 18, 2021 at 6:18 pm

Yes they want us disarmed and defenseless, that way they don’t have to fear taking over every aspect of our lives and destroying whoever dares object. Every tyrant’s greatest fear: Having to deal with an armed and p*ssed off populace!

MSNBC reporter crossed state lines to chase and dox the jurors.

By the way, the McCloskey’s also defended themselves and were being prosecuted.

Colonel Travis | November 18, 2021 at 6:24 pm

Every comment by Prof. is 100% truth.

Professor J. is totally on-point with his analysis. I would only add that we are witnessing the rotten fruits of the Dhimmi-crats’ cancerous corruption of law schools and the legal profession, because no honest, ethical and morally upright prosecutor pursuing Justice — as opposed to a political agenda and his/her own professional ambitions — would ever have charged and/or personally tried this case, so glaringly absent are the evidentiary and factual supports for the charges. There should absolutely be Bar disciplinary action imposed upon prosecutors who abuse their office for political reasons and who charge politically-motivated charges that are unsupported by the evidentiary and factual record.

    Close The Fed in reply to guyjones. | November 18, 2021 at 7:22 pm

    And for he that, in a courtroom full of people, point a rifle, and places his finger on the trigger.

    He should be admonished by the State Bar for that. I was taught weapon safety early in the Army and his conduct with the weapon disgraced him even more.

    I was surprised & dismayed the Judge did not admonish him in open court, immediately.


1. Chill right to self-defense
2. Chill right to free speech (while promoting state-media propaganda and censorship of all other media)
3. Identify and remove those who care about personal liberty with “mask mandates” – if you complain – you’re a free thinker and we take your livelihood away. Promote only those who think the way the State wants.
4. Chill protest against government – Throw full weight of gov’t against Jan-6 protestors.
5. De-humanize opponents – call them all “white supremacists” – it worked for Nazi’s and Communists.
6. Open Boders – Fill the country with more easily manipulated masses.
7. Indoctrinate kids to hate their country – accept State orders.

Welcome to USSR 2.0

Welcome to the Obama Citizen Army. Now they are purging Americans from the Armed Forces and I would not be surprised if Biden offers the illegals a path to citizenship through military service.

    luckystars33 in reply to Elzorro. | November 18, 2021 at 7:02 pm

    They’ve been doing that for a long time. Knew a guy from El Salvador who was offered a green card, then they renigged after he served for the US down there.

aramissebastian | November 18, 2021 at 6:46 pm

So, with regards to Prof. Jacobson, an attorney is an attorney, true, but this case would appear to be outside the ambit of his expertise — the fields of securities and, gasp, corporate law,

And I don’t know how you rage against the ‘elites’, when you make your living inculcating them. And make no mistake, the student body of Cornell Law is the elite personified, from the ‘best’, most exclusive North-Eastern schools, and the most advantaged, upper middle class families from NYC; Beverly Hills; and Bala Cynwyd, etc. So, if the elites have gone astray, then something must be wrong with the good professor’s pedagogy.

And if it weren’t for the “liberal’ values of free-speech and opinion, Prof. Jacobson would be bounced from Cornell in a heartbeat.

So, for example, if he were on the faculty of Liberty-Baptist U. Law School, and published a website that advocated for abortion rights, etc., how long do you think he’d remain employed? Not long, I wager . . .

What say you, Professor J.?

    The end of your second paragraph is where you go astray.

    They’ve been trying to bounce him from Cornell. They haven’t succeeded because he fights back.

    He… defends himself.

      aramissebastian in reply to McGehee. | November 18, 2021 at 7:05 pm

      He defends himself how?

      By falling back on traditional ‘liberal’ values of free speech?

      But the larger point is that he’s a hypocrite.

      He’s in a milieu that he scorns, apparently.

      In common parlance, he talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.

        healthguyfsu in reply to aramissebastian. | November 18, 2021 at 7:31 pm

        I think we found one of his disgruntled activist snowflakes on campus.


        texansamurai in reply to aramissebastian. | November 18, 2021 at 7:41 pm

        would seem a lot of us are “in a milieu” these last twelve months–lord, stevie wonder could see the damage being wrought upon this great country by biden, et al in concert with a totally corrupt media

        you use the word “hypocrite” to describe the professor but believe you are not cognizant of his situation in total–galactic difference between “hypocrite” and “cautious” as descriptors of men–given the audacity/impunity with which the media acts/reacts toward anyone that openly criticizes the left/prog/fascist narrative, believe(at least for now)that caution the more prudent course than outright(and probably violent/lethal)conflict–is rather a trait of gentlemen and gentle men

        Colonel Travis in reply to aramissebastian. | November 18, 2021 at 7:55 pm

        Doesn’t walk the walk? This site is his walk. He set up a foundation – that’s another walk. The man is exposing as much BS as he can. What are you doing, besides bitching about someone in a comment section. I would bet a decent amount of money that his “walk” is more influential than yours will ever be.

    healthguyfsu in reply to aramissebastian. | November 18, 2021 at 7:23 pm

    Ignorance is progressive bliss for the ignorant disphits like yourself. You think that free speech is a “liberal” value to this day? I find it funny that you call that a “liberal” value when it’s ingrained in the Constitution your side likes to take a piss on whenever they get a chance.

    The right that comes next is also under attack and we don’t plan to give it up without a fight.

    You’re also ignorant of Liberty U who invited Bernie Sanders to speak there during his first campaign. I don’t remember anyone shouting down or protesting his visit to campus or an increase in security. Who is really afraid of the ideas of the other side? Look around college campuses at the reactions and find out.

      henrybowman in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 18, 2021 at 8:05 pm

      “Free speech” is now a conservative/libertarian value.

      “Progressives” now believe in censorship — banning “hate” speech, banning “triggering” speech, banning politically oppositional speech, speech being violence, and even silence being violence.

      Don’t use the word “liberal” in this argument, as you don’t know what it means, and neither does anyone else you say it to. “Liberal” used to mean what “libertarian” means now, before the Marxists kidnapped it, gang-banged it all out of shape, then discarded it.

      Don’t ever use “liberal,” because you don’t know where it’s been.

    henrybowman in reply to aramissebastian. | November 18, 2021 at 7:34 pm

    He teaches X, so he knows only X?
    I’m a professional computer engineer, but what I teach is gun safety. What does that make me?
    If you have only one expertise, you are a poor human being indeed. But that’s apparent.

      healthguyfsu in reply to henrybowman. | November 18, 2021 at 9:58 pm

      One of the easy tells that this person is young and triggered while trying to hide behind a pseudointellectual veneer of wordsmithing (likely coming from a “studies” major) is that it inverts a classical logical fallacy that has never been claimed by the target of the challenge.

      It’s as though it’s trying to tear down the opinion published as though Jacobson’s opinion was an “appeal to authority”. Such appeal was never made as Jacobson has become an expert on the topic of legal insurrection in general by running a blog and serving as a de facto journalist (sorry to use that term Prof as I think you are better than what that profession has become) reporting on the sad state of affairs of discourse in this country, both on academic campuses and in other venues.

    What does all your lambasting the good professor have to do with the Rittenhouse Trial?,,, and its possible impact on our right to defend ourselves? At least Rags was funny in a coarse kinda way. As he told me once,, just scroll down.

    “… outside the ambit of his expertise — the fields of securities and, gasp, corporate law,”

    I’m no lawyer and the fields of security and corporate law are outside my ambit, but free speech and second amendment rights and the right to claim self defense, those rights accrue, serve to protect me every other person, even noncitizens, from government abuse, coercion, and particularly overreach seeking to coerce and abuse individuals.

    I don’t need a Harvard degree to understand the constitutional principles focused on protecting me from unprincipled government rogues.

    Free speech is no longer a “liberal” value. The Progressive Left despises free speech.

    Additionally, one does not have to be a lawyer focused on the area of self defense to see through the gaping holes in this prosecution, as well as the misconduct.

The goal is to allow ‘Jump Kick Man’ to kill you.

aramissebastian | November 18, 2021 at 7:02 pm

I’m pretty sure he keeps his opinions to himself.

So, for example, I doubt he takes the podium in his securities and corporate law classes, before all those well-groomed corporate lawyer wannabes, chasing 6 figures starting salaries, and opines, a la Niedermeyer, “You’re all worthless and weak. Drop and give me 20.”

aramissebastian | November 18, 2021 at 7:31 pm

How does a guy who attended super-preppy Hamilton College in NY, and was Law Review at Harvard Law School and then worked for Wall Street corporate law firm Cahill, Gordon, Reindell and now teaches securities law at Cornell Law, successfully style himself as a champion of the forgotten and the down-trodden?

False prophet, anyone?

    You sure have an axe to grind. Sounds way too personal

    Yawn. Piss off, troll.

    henrybowman in reply to aramissebastian. | November 18, 2021 at 7:42 pm

    Who do you think is a good champion of the forgotten and downtrodden?
    Social and financial parasite Karl Marx?
    Mass murderer of women and children Che Guevara?
    Genocider of 25% of his own people Pol Pot?
    Millionaire deadbeat Bernie Sanders?
    Four-mansions BLM leader Patrice Cullors?

    You sound like one of those a*les who claim that if you don’t have a uterus, you don’t get to have any opinion on abortion whatsoever. Well, in the free world, it doesn’t work that way.

    CommoChief in reply to aramissebastian. | November 18, 2021 at 8:44 pm

    Guy, what are you on about? With your odd attack on Prof Jacobson’s day job teaching Securities law at Cornell you seem to be implying that only those opposed to capitalism can legitimately speak up in defense of the middle class. While that viewpoint may be convenient for people of a Marxist bent it lacks any basis in reality.

    That sort of all or nothing demand that others conform to your narrow minded ideological purity test is sophomoric at best. What you will discover as you continue to learn and grow into a functional adult is that life is lived not in individual pots of paint which never mix but on the canvas where you take a bit of this and a little of that and create your life using your brushstrokes to blend, highlight and create a sense of perspective.

    Best of luck in your journey to successful adulthood. My suggestion is get career path, get married, have children, get a mortgage and make all of it work. Those are the true markers of an adult not any credential hung on your wall.

    Hit the bricks, Karen. You’re less than useless here.

    healthguyfsu in reply to aramissebastian. | November 18, 2021 at 10:01 pm

    Maybe he got a social justice scholarship? He is Jewish you know?

Could the prosecutor be charged or sued for assault by the jurors he pointed the gun at? Seriously. He leveled the weapon, finger on the trigger and pointed it various jurors. No chamber flag and breech closed.

Nazis and Communists flourish where their opponents are disarmed

I am certain Garland is ready with a federal indictment the minute Rittenshouse is acquitted. Garland was prepared to move quickly to indict Chauvin and the same federal indictments were handed down in the Rodney King case back in the 90’s. This case is far from over regardless of the verdict. BTW, why all the irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with the trial? Professor Jacobson is not on trial here.

Eliminating the right of self defense is right out of the socialism playbook, Solzhenitsyn discusses this in the Gulag Archipelago: ordinary citizens had virtually no right to defend themselves from the ordinary, hardened street criminals that were found in the Soviet cities. This was by design; a population that couldn’t defend itself against ordinary street hoods certainly wasn’t capable of resisting the NKVD.

If the police are going to arrest people who lawfully defend themselves, maybe we really should consider defunding the police?

If there is no evidence that a shooting wasn’t in self defense, the police have no right to arrest someone for defending themselves! A departmental policy to arrest the innocent and sort them out later is unconstitutional!.

Arresting people first and then finding evidence to convict them is so un-American!