client with that same significant lifelong mental health disorder. only in 2006 their issue was is he fit for duty. right. and in 2006 they didn t tell my client about that vulnerability, that disorder. my client had a 15-year window where he could have gotten treatment, he could have gotten counseling, he could have gotten assistance dealing with that disorder. but you know, with mental health we treat that like we need to shroud it in secrecy. right. and it s not right. it s definitely a stigma. and you say that that is part of the recipe that made him vulnerable to the entreaties of trump and others about january 6. he s going to serve his no. no. i m not saying that. you know, jake made a really important point in front of this court. and that was not only was he accountable but he wanted to be held accountable. jake made it clear, i made it clear to the court that indeed this was not about president trump, this wasn t about whether
the kyle rittenhouse jury, they re going to go into a fourth day of deliberations starting tomorrow morning. they re done for the night. they ve already spent a combined 23 hours. what does that mean? it s proof of the complexity of the case. it s proof of the difficulty of deciding the killer s fate. even after he shot and killed two people and injured another in kenosha, wisconsin during the protests following the police shooting of jacob blake. a juror today asked a very interesting question, got a more interesting answer from the judge. she said, can i take home the jury instructions? remember, they re not sequestered. the judge said yes. now, there s no reason to speculate about it, but it certainly raises an eyebrow. what s she going to do with them at home? is she going to ask somebody else about it? she s not supposed to. we have no reason to believe that this juror tends to do anything else. but that s a curious situation in that courtroom. in georgia the prosecution went afte
big old italian family who grew up with a lot of coarse language. you may understand what i m talking about here. it s time for us to really keep it simple. when somebody has a problem, it s really, really important to get your message out so it s understood. we ve got a former president who s really screwed up a lot of people. i m not saying anything about the political end of it. not my business. not my role. i m an advocate. but you know what? you mess with people, you mess with their heads, and you put them in a position like that, you know what? own it that you screwed it up. let me ask you one other thing. in the course of your representation here and the work you ve done on the case and what the atmosphere was like and what the constituencies were about, are you concerned that there are a lot of other people out there that haven t come to the realization that your client has, that aren t going to be incarcerated that are still out there, still listening and may want to act in
hate-filled rally? now, the reason i want to do it tonight is it turned bizarre today. the defendant is richard spencer. okay? one of the dozen. he defied the judge repeatedly, ignoring his order not to mention trump s good people on both sides quote because it was never part of the evidence. a defense lawyer told the jury that all his clients agreed to do was get in a fistfight. i guess no one told that to the guy who rammed his car into heather heyer and dozens more. now, here s an interesting point. you don t have to be in a civil war to be in a real war on civility as well as rule of law in this country. and that brings us to january 6. i ve never seen a situation more underplayed for political effect in all my years doing this job. you ve got more than 660 defendants charged, and one of the toughest felony sentences yet goes to the face of the
the proof isn t just in how polarized we are but how political attacks are getting more and more personal. on the law you can t do that. they re called ad hominems. you can t talk about the other lawyer. think about that. that s all they do in politics now. that s where we are. that brings us to republican congressman paul gosar. look, i don t know how anyone who s being honest can say that he wasn t way out of line and in fact he s been way out of line too many times. now he was censured and he was removed of his committee assignments. it was the first time a sitting house member has been censured in more than ten years. now, look, i think there s reason for that. when you look at the history of what censure is for, i don t even know that this falls into it, to be honest. and i think that by forcing a consequence the democrats now open themselves up to two things. one, the right s going to do what it does best, which is close ranks and they re going to pretend that somehow they ve bee