The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome, welcome, welcome. Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. We’ll have another conversation with Peter Navarro about his book Trump Time and about his recent subpoena before one of the congressional committees, the House Committee, I think, on Covid. He’s always wonderfully candid and frank. It’ll be good to catch up with him and hear what he’s got to say.
Also, at the end of the program, I’ll relay to you my visit recently to the jail in Washington, DC, area… In DC, in the District of Columbia, with one of the January 6 defendants. Amazing guy. And I’ll tell you about that visit.
I will also talk with Paul Seegert. Paul Seegert is an expert on health care. He’ll tell us why, exactly. Medicare premiums have jumped almost 15%. It’s not inflation, exactly… I mean, it’s price inflation, but it’s not inflation. It has to do with what Medicare expects to spend on, and therefore they’re passing on the cost. I’m not sure you can get away with raising Medicare premiums 15%. Our seniors don’t really like that. We’ll see what happens, but I wonder if there’s a way to appeal it. I don’t think there is, so more on that later.
Again, please visit, don’t forget it’s Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. Please visit proamericareport.com, Proamericareport.com, Get signed up for the Daily WYNK, listen to the great segments we have, and otherwise get connected to what we’re up to. Again, the Daily WYNK is what you need to know, an email that goes out 08:00 a.m. Monday through Friday with some details on links that you need to check out, a few thoughts, and often a link to this segment, this radio segment, because this opening segment of the program is called What You Need To Know.
And What You Need To Know, obviously, today is about the Rittenhouse trial. And here’s what I want to do: I want to put aside any conversation about how broken the media is and how Kyle Rittenhouse should sue any of them… MSNBC and all sorts of other people for maligning him, for defamation. I want to put aside any of the nonsense that happens outside the courtroom, and I simply want to point to the Rittenhouse trial as an indication of a highly functioning Republic, our Democratic Republic, which is imperfect in many ways.
But in this case, in my opinion, the system worked pretty darn well because all of the kinds of things that are available to distort our legal system were available. It was a televised trial. The media outlets, cable news, MSNBC in particular, were unfair, patently dishonest, dishonorable, disreputable. All the factors.
What I think was now, in retrospect, could be said a overzealous prosecutor who felt based on his position – I can’t read his mind, but his conduct seemed to indicate that he had to charge this case because of the politics of it and on and on and on. And it was a young person, only 17 years old when the incident occurred, 18 when he was tried, which is now. And as you saw, if you saw the video of it, and as you’ve heard about, he was acquitted on all the counts. And it was unanimous. And it took almost four days, I guess four and a half days, didn’t it? I think they started deliberating on Monday. It’s already Friday when they finished. So somewhere around three and a half, four days. That’s an extraordinary amount of time they had to convince each other.
They had to come to the conclusion. If you’ve seen the famous movie Twelve Angry Men or read some of the historical descriptions of juries and all, there’s lots to think about and wonder about, what happened and all. There will probably be a gazillion stories written about it. But in this case, in this matter of Rittenhouse, it seems to me they got to the right conclusion, and they did it pretty well. The judge, who I think is a Democrat, or maybe let me say he was appointed by a Democrat, is what I think I’ve read. But he seemed to be tough on the prosecutor, but he didn’t throw a mistrial, he didn’t give in to the defense and say, “you know, what a mess. We’ll just do a mistrial.” He let the process play out. He did become a little bit of a hot button himself for a period in the middle of this, and you wondered, “oh, boy, is he going to become the story? Is he going to dominate the story and become the factor?”
Because remember, if you can recall and some of our listeners would be so much, they might not have been born by the time, by the time. But Judge Ito in the OJ case, he really became a distraction. He really became problematic. The judge has to be strong enough to be a factor, meaning he’s in charge. But you don’t want to be a distraction. I don’t know if that’s a very good distinction there, but I think this judge did a good job on that.
So Kyle Rittenhouse is cleared, acquitted, not to be tried again. Could he be sued for wrongful death or something by somebody? They could try. But once you’re acquitted in this kind of case, it’s probably pretty difficult. And like I said, he may have causes of action for defamation or for what was said about him. But the system seemed to work.
The jury sent out lots of requests. They wanted to look at this, look at that. It means they were at least considering it, at some point, considering whether to be guilty or not guilty. At some point, people had to come to agree that, you know what? I started out thinking maybe he did this or that or he didn’t do this or that, and therefore… and they had to work together to come to a consensus. And it’s so much better to have a decision… in this case,
I think the right decision… than to have had a mistrial called or a hung jury called because maybe they’d never try him again because of the hassle and the chaos. But his life would be ruined. His life would be damaged. Most people would say if the judge had to call a mistrial, had you declare a mistrial, it would mean like, oh, yeah, the guy was guilty. He probably did something. It’s just he got off on a technicality. I think that’s how it would feel. I’m not saying that’s legally true, of course. But it’s how it would feel.
And with the kind of scrutiny, it’s a much better system that they fought… the wrong word, but they worked together in the jury room to ask the questions to come up with a decision. And it was the right decision, in my opinion. From what I saw of the facts, from what I saw of what went on. And so we had the system play out and end up pretty darn well. There were moments where you said, man, the prosecutor seems to be in over his head. This isn’t a good case. There were times where you thought the defense did not do their job.
I’m not a big fan, by the way of having all of our court cases televised, I think it leads to a desire to… well, at least a couple of things. One is it will indulge the desire of participants in litigation to be TV stars. The second thing is, it will reveal the system to be very much like the rest of life, which is to say, imperfect. Good and special and nice, but imperfect. Right?
And it’s a credit to our system that the Rittenhouse case came out this way. It’s a credit both, I think they got the right result, that’s my opinion. I’ve said it from the beginning. I think that he didn’t do anything wrong. I think a lot of the reasons they shouldn’t have tried this case, but I also think that when they did, they let the system work its way out and it worked. It worked, which is pretty cool for America. And put aside what people say outside the courtroom and what idiots do things violently outside the courtroom for another day.
All right, let’s take a break. When we come back, we got some great guests. Ed Martin here on a Pro America Report, back in a moment.