Like us on Facebook (don't let them censor another conservative site!):

CNN calls Judge Schroeder of the Rittenhouse case “bigoted”

CNN, the Clown News Network is at it again, now attacking the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. The entire Rittenhouse case involves four white males. Kyle Rittenhouse and the three white males he shot in self defense. There isn’t a twinge of race involved in this case, yet CNN like the rest of the media has to try and make it about race and hustle it.

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has not gone the way many in the media expected it to go and, on Friday, weekday afternoon CNN Newsroom host Ana Cabrera and legal analyst Areva Martin had a theory as to why: Judge Bruce Schroeder. In a tiresome fashion, the duo tossed several pejoratives Schroeder’s way on Friday including “controversial,” “bigoted,” and “drama king.”

Cabrera went first, describing Schroeder as one who “has commanded a lot of the spotlight with his anger, some controversial rulings, some head-scratching remarks to be kind.”

Not only did Cabrera miss that, of course, judges are controversial when weighing in on trial rules and can berate all sides, she also tried to paint Schroeder as a racist by playing a clip from Thursday of him joking, “Let’s hope for 1:00. I don’t know, the– hope the Asian food isn’t coming, isn’t on one of those boats on Long Beach Harbor, but let’s aim for 1:00.”

Coming out of the clip, Cabrera asked: “While he appeared to be eluding to supply chain issues there, traffic jam of cargo ships, Asian groups took offense. What do you think about the judge’s conduct in this trial?”

An incensed Martin declared that she found him “reprehensible.” Her proof? Here she was: “From the beginning, some of his rulings, not allowing the prosecution to call the two men that died victims and the man that was shot victims, but allowing the defense to use the term rioters and looters.”

Calling the three men victims would not be giving the defendant the presumption of innocence. CNN could learn something here, because pronouncing guilt on a suspect before the verdict is reached is also poor journalism ethics.