Okay, let's see here.
If he's acquitted there's no new trial Bob. You should be watching it, you'd find quite the kindred spirit in the prosecutor, who seems to think that making use of the 5th amendment or your right to representation by an attorney are proof of guilt. You seem to have a similar respect for the 10th.
Robert, despite living in the US for his entire adult doesn't even the faintest clue on how anything beyond the basics of US law. He really does think that DOJ has the ability to just sentence anyone he dislikes.
There's probably going to be an appeal if Rittenhouse gets anything less than a long stay at the crossbar hotel (not to mention riots as Antifa realizes people now have legal precedent to justify fighting back.)
Prosecution can't appeal. Length of sentence for a guilty verdict they can, yeah, but not if he's found not guilty of something.
One of the replies also pointed out that he seems to think all federal courts are in D.C. And I think this is probably true!
Unfortunately, due to the wide discretionary power of US Attorneys, anyone who commits a "vanilla" murder can be federally charged with violating the civil rights (life) of the alleged victim and meet the burden of proof needed to just make your life a living hell for another 8 years until you break down and plea out, as any sane person would tire of that shit. Leaving this an avenue of abuse that was widely not touched out of professional/political respect until the courts all got woke in the last 10 years or so.
I have no idea what he meant when he said "legal's" there , if he'd been more clear I could actually pick apart the fact that any way you slice it, he'd be arguing that a "jury of your peers" does not mean those actually affected by your alleged crime, but a coven of cultured elites who've never met you.... which is preposterous to every notion of fair Western law in the last 200 years. But as it is right now? "Legal's" puts this in "not even wrong" territory.
Isn't that double jeopardy?
Robert doesn't care. He knows one side is bad (the defense) and one side is good (the prosecution) and he thinks good should always be allowed to win.
Hell, I'd go to bat and say Dixon is, by volume of quality and output, probably DC's most consistently high quality writer, only rivaled by maybe Marv Wolfman or Mike Grell. Yeah, you might have your artistes like Moore etc but they don't turn out work on multiple titles every month for a decade.
I really want to create a MovieBob tweet MadLibs now. MovieBob or Nazi except fun for the whole family!
Bob of course is a master of pleading fear and danger; one of his few masteries is to waddle as quickly as possible to allies and hide behind them when faced with critique.
He is, like so many social media addicted brainless parasites of his generation, willfully ignorant of civics and views life through the prism of Harry Potter and capeshit.
What Bob wants is the good old Law of 22 that Robespierre installed in the Revolutionary France of old. If you don't know about this, old Robbie enacted this law in order to alleviate the enormous burden on the legal system because of the enormous amount of cases that were pending. This law essentially allowed trials to take place and veredicts to be reached without mundane things like testimony, probable cause, or evidence. Essentially, it would be Bob's ideal trial system.
I essentially think it's because a lack of identity and purpouse mixed with a lack of wits and/or proper thinking process. The lack of purpouse is more than evident in Bob, as well as many other people that we see depicted in soyboys. Their only goal is to consoom, only to numb themselves from the dread of knowing that they have nothing important in their lives. This summed with their lack of thinking process makes for them to see everything in the world through the lens of their fandom/pop culture niche. Be it Harry Potter, Star Wars or some other inane mainstream garbage that gets shoved into TV these days.
