May 14, 2021


Daily Global New Media

42 thoughts on “Bret Weinstein: Democrats are riding the BLM wave

  1. Just for starters the Chauvin trial prosecution testimony revealed that the prosecution does not know:

    1) when Floyd died;

    2) the cause of Floyd's death

    3) extent to which his drug overdose and heart condition caused his death:

    Did produce evidence that:

    4) He had taken large amounts of Fentanyl and other drugs, such that medical examiners would have found those drugs to be the cause of death had they not watched the arrest video (which is to say examiners formed conclusions on evidence to which they were direct witnesses or expert in interpreting;

    5) Floyd had violently resisted arrest;

    6) Floyd had chosen and verbalized his preference to go to the ground rather than the back of the police car;

    7) prosecution witnesses testified to the use of the knee restraint for a prolonged period themselves;

    8) That the knee restrain would be kept in place in the situation Chauvin faced due to the threatening nature of the crowd;

    9) The crowd was out of control enough that EMT pulled out from intimidation;

    10) That Floyd had broken multiple laws from passing bad money, and to the direct knowledge of the police to violently resisting arrest, and being in control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, so arrested he was going to be…

    11) and one of the government's medical witnesses produced evidence that Floyd died early in the ground restraint, that would contradict all those theory of the case elements that see Chauvin's crime as keeping his knee in place after Floyd went limp. Though in the end it is not know when F. died.

    12) There were photos that were entered into evidence that showed that Chauvin did not have his knew on Floyd's neck, but on his shoulder, did not produce a blood choke, or compress Floyd's windpipe. In other words did not strangle F. However, one particularly violent individual at the scene believed he did see a strangulation and had to be held back from attacking the officers, though his testimony was refuted on cross.

    The Judge in the case was widely admired, with reason, though he has a prior history of supporting BLM protestors.

    Etc… Just so that people will understand a lefty like Bret suggesting there could be some doubt of Floyd's guilt even if the defense had basically called no witnesses of it's own.

  2. This snip of the talk doesn’t fill me with trust, I ll get the doubts, but to be honest the evidence was under everyone’s eyes…The jury just needed to establish the length, was Biden right or wrong? Overall I would say high profile people should not influence the decision, but he simply stated what everyone saw and there was no ambiguity, hence I would not see it as problem. I get sceptical when someone attacks a public person because of the opposite party…regardless, hence I don t like the tone of this snipped interview! May be true Biden is riding the BLM wave…and if it brings more justice and equality why not?I am not sure how much his heart is in it, so it might be only delusional! I ll watch the recording but I must say (unlike other times) I don t have my expectations high, sorry Freddie 😉

  3. Did he just say, “…A reasonable doubt should be likely in this case”? 🤔 I wonder what has to happen for there to be NO reasonable doubt. I’d really like someone to describe that scenario please…

  4. The problem here is the belief in MYTHS, such as a just outcome from a trial by a jury of your peers. Meaningless tripe and always has been. This guy doesn't know what the effin' hell he's talking about. Belief in the state and "rule of law" is a medieval belief system counter to material FACT. Law is written by the ruling class and INTERPRETED (my favorite part) by the ruling class judges as is the Constitution. A supreme court justice even stated that the "constitution means what a judge says it means". The ultimate gaslighting. And the beyond a reasonable doubt bullshit? Well, the Law of Torture implemented right into courtrooms when middle age property owners were seizing the "rule of law' from church and monarchy, is the CONFESSION tortured from someone was the "beyond a reasonable doubt". Nothing but idiotic platitudes. Court rulings are ALWAYS political and juries of our peers are the same morons we see everywhere on a daily basis who don't even know what their mythical rights are supposed to be. And none of this is new. It's ALWAYS been this way. Ask any American socialist/communist/Jehovah's witness who was f&cked right the F*CK out of their so-called "rights". Try opening a history book or learning about the third branch of "state". Really.

  5. Democrats CREATED BLM. In my view, the use of a conscript militia, (BLM & Antifa) for the purposes of affecting the outcome of the 2020 presidential election was both, an act of war and a crime on a scale not seen before in America.

  6. Oh boy. Left is doing what the right has done for decades. Jump on a bandwagon. Better come up with some terms to explain the situation to keep with conservatism. How about, snowflake, virtue signalling. political correctness.

  7. BLM is a self-professed Marxist group. In other words, Europe with its roots of anti-Americanism is largely responsible for corrupting US universities, giving birth to radical nonsense. The difference between 70 years ago and now, Americans are fighting the ism war on its own soil.

  8. I'm a lefty – but could you imagine if Trump came out and said similar things about making sure someone is guilty. Everyone is innocent until found by jury (and as the fella said, beyond reasonable doubt).

  9. Was gobsmacked to see the statements, from not only the American president but other top level elected members of the American govt about this case in progress. Horrified actually. And the lack of response by the media is utterly discouraging.

  10. "for cynical reasons"? Imagine that. Politicians with cynical motives.
    The president didn't weigh in on the Chauvin case until the jury was sequestered. So no contamination.
    i'm generally conservative, but this guy is not helpful in his analysis. Conservatives have so much to live down in the wake of the Trump fiasco (and Trump was no conservative—he was an opportunist who got more mileage than we ever expected!). Republicans need to find their own moral center again and practice a kind of humility before they can expect to be heard again. And we need them to have a voice. A voice that is not cynical….if that's even possible. Making personal slights against Biden is the dumbest thing they can do. Differ away! But lets have some civility back.

  11. This guy is part of the problem. He is an SJW. He still believes the crap he would give a black guy a job before you to get back at you for some crime your "ancestors" did. Throw him some more softballs.

  12. And now you’re interviewing one of the Weinstein bros… you guys just keep knocking it out of the park with these guests!!!! I wish more people would listen to reason. There is no check. Brett has been warning us, since Evergreen.

  13. This Chauvin verdict is just as bad as the act of lynching by KKK mobs back in the days. Today’s twist is racial injustice under the name of racial justice.

  14. Whatever the excesses of the left (and they are all too real) Derek Chauvin was absolutely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Brett Weinstein's judgement has been completely distorted because of the Evergreen fiasco.

  15. Bret is the one who is cynical and corrupt. He's lying here. Biden's comments were made after the jury was sequestered. Even the "Blue wall" broke. Police officials themselves testified against Chauvin. Chauvin's guilt was so evident. There was no reasonable doubt.

  16. No checks AT ALL! The must retry because these jurists were not sequestered nor was the case moved out of Minnesota. Would you come out against the mob when they know where you live and who your family is? Doubt it! It is disgusting how the politicians show up and speak out when they.are supposed to be upholding everyone's right to a fair trial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 × two =