two of his early posts in here say it all

"what we are seeing now is just drama for the television"

"don't worry there will be something else to get overly emotional about"

He says things that say other things, without actually saying those thing

He feigns this "the law is blind" objectivity in some posts. In others, he clearly minimizes the notion of having a trial at all.

When people bring up valid issues with some of the facts about Rittenhouse, he responds with things like:

"our opinions on what he was or wasn't doing will not have an impact on his case

are you surprised that his defense attorneys are going to use the law in any way they can to win the case for their client?"

That was his response to handle pointing out some of the most problematica facts about this case.

You and I had a discussion earlier, along those same lines, about one of the more glaring pieces of evidence being ruled inadmissible.

But lenny over here is on that "there is nongray area in a courtroom!" steeze.

No shit, our opinions on this do not impact the case. We ALL know that. It's been noted that he'll likely walk- and nobody is disagreeing that this is the likely outcome.

The law can let guilty people go free, even as it sends people who are either innocent, or have a strong case for reasonable doubt, depending on what is or isn't allowed.

Lenny's feigned "blind justice" tact wouldn't generate the replies it has, were he not actively undermining that tact with other comments that clearly demonstrate a less than objective stance.

It would also fly better if he weren't also, at the same damn time, defending colby covington over in OKS.

or if he didn't have other posts in his two-week OKP stint with similar Roganite talking points.

all this to say, he's not saying these thjngs in a vacuum. were he speaking from a strict legal analysis standpoint, and not with snarky barbs about how the law doesn't give a shit about your opinions, you wouldn't see these sorts of replies to it.