An Attorney Has Blasted Youtube For Interfering With Their Livestream

Livestreams of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial have been streaming across YouTube and other platforms since the beginning of the problem. The streams haven’t been interrupted, and the ads at the front have been a clear sign that they were monetized and the news networks were generating revenue from viewers.  

When it comes to Rekieta Law, however, their live stream was taken down temporarily. The law channel featured several lawyers over the approximate two weeks the trial has been proceeding, and they’ve provided real-time commentary during testimony and even during breaks. They have been supportive of the self-defense claim based on their law experience and often had more viewers than mainstream media channels.  

It is a problem for the left. Some attorneys believe that the rule of law exists in the United States and that Americans are free to defend themselves against attacks in the street. The prosecution often attempted to claim that self-defense didn’t exist in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial because Kyle had a weapon and one of the men killed during the encounter was “unarmed,” and the man he wounded was armed with a pistol. To remind anyone reading, a skateboard used in the commission of an assault is a weapon. The fact that they claimed he was unarmed is ridiculous.  

After the live stream was taken down, Nick Rekieta reminded YouTube that cutting the live stream of attorneys commenting on a trial that’s made public isn’t going to fly. Nick tweeted, “Today, @TeamYouTube is pushing down independent creators in favor of BOGUS copyright from Media Partners. YT consistently shows that creators who build their platform are disfavored by the media. Hey YouTube. We have a contract, and you’re breaking it.” 

They’re back up and running. It’s not wise to mess with attorneys who know the law and know their rights. YouTube will lose every single time.  

The trial section where they were cut off was when Thomas Binger, the prosecuting attorney, began his closing arguments. It was likely an attempt to silence Rekieta Law and not allow them to pick apart the closing arguments because Binger made some ridiculous claims and even held the gun that Rittenhouse used in his hands and pointed it at the jury with his finger on the trigger. Not a very safe way to present a closing argument to the jury.  

Rekieta law didn’t argue with everything that the prosecution did or said. One attorney commended the prosecution for their closing argument style but condemned their lack of factual basis to make some of the arguments (I listened to it live, and I’m unable to find the source in the hours of live stream otherwise, I would include a link).