A new legal commentary and analysis concept launched during the Kyle Rittenhouse clown trial. A YouTube channel called Rekieta Law ran a live stream throughout the trial and brought on actual practicing attorneys to provide real-time commentary and education to us non-legal types.
A clip of their reaction to the AntiFa-BLM slime Gaige Grosskreutz' fail on cross, when he admitted to pointing the gun at Rittenhouse first before his bicep was turned into chop-suey, went viral. The clip was shared all over the internet, and the stream took off from there.
At one point they hit over 100k viewers watching the live stream. They may have been implementing this concept previously, but now everyone I know following the Rittenhouse trial was watching it.
The concept itself seems simple, but for those of us who remember the O.J. trial, Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony, and other high-profile court cases, the commentary makes the experience entertaining, and in retrospect after watching Rekieta's stream, I realize we've never had great commentary and analysis beyond a few exceptions that I'm sure I'm forgetting.
The problem with legal commentary nowadays is it all sucks, and it's rooted in fake news and Marxist propaganda. It's watered down crap, unchallenged, and it's not typically done by real or competent lawyers.
The cable TV pundit may be a licensed bar member, and maybe worked at a firm, or maybe even clerked, but usually they've never been in the weeds of actual trials where they stand before a judge and argue a case in front of a jury with someone's freedom on the line, be it as prosecutor or defense attorney.
We mostly get the Gloria Allred types who probably have never seen the inside of a courtroom, but built a career on holding her crying client's hand during a scripted interview, with a box of Kleenex in plain view.
She made a ton of money from it, so it's not like she's bad at what she does, but she's more of a public relations-type attorney who wins settlements (which is not a bad thing). I'm not singling her out specifically, but she's in the mold of the type of television attorney that makes you dumber if you listen to her.
Worse, we get lunatics who did practice, like Nancy Grace, who was a prosecutor in Atlanta. She made the move to TV years ago and covered the famous trials over the years, where she confirmed herself to be certifiably crazy. How crazy? Recently she called Kyle Rittenhouse a teen vigilante.
If you think Rittenhouse wasn't defending himself, then you're too stupid for me to even associate with, and certainly not someone from whom I could absorb legal knowledge. This brings up another point to the low quality commentary on cable TV, where the pundits seem to have literally no idea about the details and facts of the cases they cover.
This is the crappy, low quality legal punditry cable TV has to offer, and until now, the type of which we were stuck, beyond a single independent live streamer who maybe had a few guests on who may or may not be attorneys.
I haven't followed every moment of the Rittenhouse trial, but I watched it in batches, and I've been very impressed with Rekieta's concept.
During the breaks in the trial, the legal discussions where extremely entertaining and educational. I learned a lot from the stream in a short amount of time, and certainly more than I've EVER learned on any legal show in the past.
One point made on the stream is with the Rittenhouse trial exposure, it's stunning how much the media has controlled cases when video feed wasn't publicly available. The commentators on Rekieta's stream are stunned how many people to this day still believe Rittenhouse shot innocent blacks, or that he possessed a gun illegally. If the fake news punditry is all we have, then justice and a fair trial is out the window.
Another point is this feed exposed how horrible the legal process has been. We saw how malicious the prosecution was, and the degree of prosecutorial misconduct has been unreal. How bad is it for trials that weren't open to the public?
Overall, Rekieta's stream provided the most entertaining and informative legal content, hands down.
I've been reading Andrew Branca's articles on Legal Insurrection for a while, and he's great, but he showed up on the stream and dropped some amazing knowledge surrounding the Rittenhouse case. Robert Barnes was there, as was Viva Frei, and even Ron Coleman whom I followed a lot on Twitter. There were many more who came and went as I wasn't watching, staggered throughout the days.
Rekieta's stream is attorneys-only (mostly -- he let a few non-attorney's pop in), which is yet another advantage over cable TV crap. During this trial, everyone interested in this case was watching Rekieta Law's stream.
Sadly, Rekieta's channel is based on YouTube, which sucks for those of us avoiding the satanic pedo-controlled platform, but I think he experimented with a streaming tool to distribute to other platforms, but he had some issues with it. I hope he works through the issues and is available for the next trial on alts. Below are a few clips from Odysee.
In conclusion, Rekieta has set the bar (no pun), and rendered cable TV legal commentary officially a joke. For any future big cases, me, and everyone else, will be watching his channel. My only critique is the same as it is for most live streams, which is they need to figure out the cross talk. Nothing turns me off more than interruptions, but that's due to the equipment and tools he was using. I'm sure they'll have that issue fixed.
Here's an example clip from the stream. It's a few hours, but check out the first 10 minutes or so:
About the goofy Wisconsin gun law that trips up a lot of people:
This was a sobering clip:
