Fox is reporting:
Kenosha sees 175 arrested during civil unrest so far; 102 had addresses listed outside city, police say
Kenosha Police said in a media release that the arrests were from people located in 44 cities, although authorities didn't elaborate which states they came from. ...
Thirty-four were arrested for violating curfew. The charges ranged from carrying concealed weapons, burglary and possession of controlled substances, police said. More than 20 firearms were seized. ...
Kenosha police had arrested nine people traveling in vehicles with out-of-state license plates last Wednesday on suspicion of criminal conduct, according to a report.
Inside the vehicles, officers found fireworks, helmets, gas masks, protective vests, and suspected controlled substances, police said.
That doesn't actually sound like "civil unrest". It sounds more like "civil war" on an interstate level.
Anecdotally, last week we read on police blogs that 'mostly peaceful' protestors were being bused in from Chicago.
Of course, many of the Wisconsin based participants in the sack of Kenosha came from cities other than Kenosha--including, if memory serves, all three of those who were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse.
Also anecdotally, I heard from a completely reliable source over the weekend that the parking lot of a Piggly Wiggly food store in Kenosha was filled with cars bearing Minnesota license plates. Go figure, right?
What this tells me is that the actual numbers of rioters is actually smaller than it appears. They are organizing to focus their attacks for maximal affect--wherever they can get the most media attention or wherever they find a safe-haven. This is also good evidence that such safe-havens pose a threat to the rest of the country. It makes their crimes inter-state by nature, and therefore a federal issue.ReplyDelete
I have no doubt that the FBI has already built up a massive database of the people involved. But more importantly, they're also undoubtedly hard at work figuring out the organizational structure and financing.Delete
Another big takeaway is that this is basically beyond the control of the mainstream Dems. They're riding a tiger and are afraid to get off.
"They're riding a tiger and are afraid to get off."
They literally can't get off.
They're pretending to get off, but such pretense isn't flying very well.Delete
Interesting article from Dyer:ReplyDelete
The media turned on a dime as soon as there was a shot fired from "the other side" ie Rittenhouse.
Prior to this, they ignored and downplayed the riots, but now they can say it's a two-sided war, with all justification.
They were waiting for this.
Flynn decision is out.ReplyDelete
Appeals court denies Michael Flynn and Justice Department's effort to end his caseReplyDelete
When the judge says it shouldn't be rea as a political decision, it's a political decision.Delete
Off to the Supreme Court to reverse this nonsense. If the Supreme Court doesn't reverse, we will have ourselves a real Constitutional crisis.Delete
My guess is the Supreme Court will reverse 8-1 or 9-0 with the unwise Latina in the minority.
Best of all, Roberts is going to have to eat a shit sandwich over his claim there are no Democrat judges.
18 page majority decision and a 40 page dissent. Says a lot.Delete
I agree that Sullivan has initiated, and the Obama judges have affirmed, what is a constitutional crisis--the right of Dem judges to override the Separation of Powers. Here's an idea: Call it "the resistance."Delete
Funny Judge Wilkins was against Mandamus before he was for it.Delete
y'know, Europe was mostly peaceful in the 1940s...I'm just sayin'ReplyDelete
And, the 3rd Reich was mostly peaceful, esp. when the SA was in formation.Delete
OT. Both TGP and Paul Mirengoff at PL Blog report Flynn mandamus refused, case returned to Sullivan for ...?ReplyDelete
The Ruling is here in pdf:Delete
Henderson and Rao dissented.ReplyDelete
One great thing about being a real estate mogul is having the reflex action of throwing letters like this right into the trash!ReplyDelete
I'm not a lawyer, but the plain reading is the writ of mandamus was premature--to be used (only) after a decision (by the judge) has been rendered. I read it as solely a procedural decision, not substantive on the facts which the appeals court goes to great length to emphasize.ReplyDelete
In that case you read it wrong. Cf. new post.Delete