No problem. But as I added onto my post, I don't think you need to worry about Rittenhouse going back on trial. I can't imagine how it would be worth the resources for the DOJ to try prosecuting a case that was kind of embarrassing for a number of reasons. There's not much you can do with a gunshot victim that admitted Rittenhouse had a viable reason to shoot him in self-defense.
I think their opportunity to make an example of Mr. Rittenhouse has come and gone. Had the prosecution team been made up of competent lawyers who presented a good case, then we might see the DOJ looking to step in, but instead, they'd have to follow up a clown show, and I'm not certain how they could possibly benefit. Even assuming they're completely corrupt, there would have to be some sort of win to motivate them, and I can't figure out what sort of win is worth the risk they'd take. Rittenhouse isn't really that big of a fish.
Okay thanks for your honest reply.
No problem. But as I added onto my post, I don't think you need to worry about Rittenhouse going back on trial. I can't imagine how it would be worth the resources for the DOJ to try prosecuting a case that was kind of embarrassing for a number of reasons. There's not much you can do with a gunshot victim that admitted Rittenhouse had a viable reason to shoot him in self-defense.
I agree
I think they want to do anything to drag him through the mud. And nothing grimier than federal mud.
I think their opportunity to make an example of Mr. Rittenhouse has come and gone. Had the prosecution team been made up of competent lawyers who presented a good case, then we might see the DOJ looking to step in, but instead, they'd have to follow up a clown show, and I'm not certain how they could possibly benefit. Even assuming they're completely corrupt, there would have to be some sort of win to motivate them, and I can't figure out what sort of win is worth the risk they'd take. Rittenhouse isn't really that big of a fish.