Atty. Andrew Branca on Dana Loesch Show: Rittenhouse Trial

By /

Atty. Andrew Branca on Dana Loesch Show: Rittenhouse Trial

8 thoughts on “Atty. Andrew Branca on Dana Loesch Show: Rittenhouse Trial”

  2. big o

    Andrew, I can’t understand what she is saying about the constitution and your twitter profile. What I mean is I can’t make out the words. It is about the 10 second mark. If you could please explain what it is she finds to be so hysterical maybe I could have a good laugh too.

    1. Attorney Andrew Branca

      She’s referring to my Twitter profile. Many people will specify their pronouns in their profile. I’ve done so, but instead of “he/him” or whatever I’ve put “US/Constitution.”

  3. Samuel M.

    I noticed from 7:15 to 7:28 of Jimmy Dore’s video youtu.be/9-SKkvH_AUc?t=435 the slow-motion highlighted footage shows that KR never pointed his rifle at anyone. This video shows what happened better than the drone footage the prosecutor doctored.

  4. Arthur Petersen

    Hi Andrew,

    Been a member of LOSD for about 6 months now – thoroughly enjoying it. First time I’ve commented. I had meant to ask this during a previous post, but asking here in the newest to make sure you see it. A few quick questions:

    1. Is there any chance of Gaige Grosskreutz being charged with attempted homicide (since it seems to me his actions indicated, well, an attempted homicide of Kyle) ? I assume the DA’s office is not inclined to charge him, but are there ways it could still happen?

    2. What is the legal rationale for the state to get a rebuttal during closing, but not the defense? It seems like both sides should get “two” times at closing to make it even and fair?

    Thanks!

    1. snowfarthing

      I don’t know about (1), except to observe that Jesse Smollett didn’t face charges until a retired judge pushed for a Special Prosecutor to take up the case, so it may be possible.

      As for (2), I’ve seen several of these cases, and I’m dumbfounded that the Prosecution gets the final say. When I was in high school debate, I participated in a format called Lincoln Douglas, and it went something like as follows: The Affirmative got seven minutes to talk about the Resolution, the Negative got six minutes, each side got two minutes of questioning, and then the Negative got three minutes, the Affirmative four, and the Negative two for final rebuttal. Considering that the Negative could have been thought of as the Defense, it makes sense that they get final say — since in a trial, someone’s freedom is on the line, I would have expected them to have final say as well, but it’s the reverse.

  5. chacker01

    Hi Andrew,
    At about 9:12 you mention “a couple of mask Erin’s”? What exactly is that? It appears that you feel that anyone who where’s a mask in public is somehow a left-wing radical. I live in a household where three of my family members have auto-immune issues or are elderly and susceptible to viruses. So, even though I do not particularly enjoy wearing masks, I do it so I can greatly reduce the possibility of introducing this particular virus to my family. Now, lets stop politicizing this virus and we as a society and country should be standing together to use the science and known precautions to make it no worse that what is now known as the common “cold”. We could have this debate, but this is not the forum for that. Just wanted to take issue with the generalizing of all public mask wearers as far left-wing radicals that have an agenda.
    Whew!! Rant over. Now to the KR trial. I agree 100% that this kid was acting purely in self defense. The prosecution did an absolute horrific job of presenting it’s case because it knew that it had no case. From a common citizens view point, this is TERRIFYING! That a state employed prosecutor can stand in front of a judge and jury and bend the truth for one purpose and one purpose only, to get a conviction by any means possible. That includes withholding evidence among other egregious acts of unscrupulous tactics. From my prospective, this amounts to out right lies. There should be some penalty for this type of prosecution, not only for the state, but for the prosecutor personally. At the very least they should be fired and their license to practice revoked. This is ultimately state sponsored dis-honesty. Wow… rant #2.
    Anyway, I would just like to conclude by saying that your left leaning friends can and do honor and love the 2nd Amendment (and the whole Constitution including the Bill of Rights) just as much as our right leaning friends.
    Keep up the great work and I look forward to more great content.
    Thank you.

Leave a Comment