CNN Complains that Kyle Rittenhouse
Unfairly Benefitted from
Overwhelming Exculpatory Evidence

CNN pundits discussing the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

ATLANTA, GEORGIA – Political pundits at CNN cried “foul” today, claiming that at his trial, Kyle Rittenhouse was unfairly benefitting from overwhelming exculpatory evidence.

Evidence that, unfortunately, CNN was unable to control.

“This is a travesty of justice,” complained Laura Coates, CNN’s Senior Legal Analyst. “The trial should have focused on all the pre-trial assertions made by the media, not the testimony from a bunch of eye witnesses that the media hasn’t been able to screen first.”

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin agreed.

“Cases like this are too important,” said Toobin. “They can’t let just any idiot testify, simply because they happened to be there, and saw what actually happened. It’s more important to hear from someone with a greater intellect, like me, to put the situation into the proper context.”

“We’ve pronounced Rittenhouse a ‘Vigilante’. What more does the court need?”

During the prosecution’s case, time and time again, their own witnesses completely destroyed their case, repeatedly proving that Rittenhouse indeed had acted out of self-defense.

The testimony of one prosecution witness was so damaging to the prosecution that one of the prosecutors buried his face in his hands.

“These witnesses are ruining everything!” complained Toobin.

In addition to the witnesses, the CNN pundits were critical of the photographic and video evidence, which also proved that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

“The pictures and video should be ignored,” said Toobin. “We in the media are the 4th branch of government. When we’ve built up such a rock-solid case against a defendant, another branch of government has no business dismantling it.”

“The courts need to recognize the damage they’re doing to the narrative.”

Coates wholeheartedly agreed, saying, “This why we need to pack the courts with more left-leaning judges: So cases will be decided based on what we think is best for society; not based on what the so-called ‘evidence’ might show.”

- The Satirized Evening Post
November 10, 2021

Return to Main Page