After the verdict was announced yesterday in the Derek Chauvin trial, the virtue signalers on the left and in the media (but I repeat myself) all but tripped over themselves to weigh in with their (in some cases bizarre) hot takes on What It All Meant and to note how, though gratifying, it hardly represented their version of “justice.”
But while an odd mixture of relief and disappointment was expressed by the Usual Suspects about the verdict given what they proclaimed to know about the case, what was not mentioned by these same people was what some feel was the elephant in the room of the Derek Chauvin jury.
Unafraid to tackle such controversial topics even in the face of repeated (and failed) attempts at canceling his program, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson wondered during the opening monologue of his program last night whether jurors might have factored in what Democrat politicians and radical BLM activists previously said about the case as well as what would likely happen in their city if they voted to acquit Chauvin:
The jury in the Derek Chauvin trial came to a unanimous and unequivocal verdict Tuesday afternoon: “Please don’t hurt us.” The jurors spoke for many in this country; everyone understood perfectly well the consequences of an acquittal in this case.
After nearly a year of burning, looting, and murder by BLM, that was never in doubt. Last night, 2,000 miles from Minneapolis, police in Los Angeles preemptively blocked roads. Why? They knew what would happen if Derek Chauvin got off.
But here’s what we can’t debate: no mob has the right to destroy our cities. Not under any circumstances, not for any reason. No politician or media figure has the right to intimidate a jury, and no political party has the right to impose a different standard of justice on its own supporters.
Those things are unacceptable in America, but all of them are happening now. If they continue to happen, decent, productive people will leave. The country as we knew it will be over. So we must stop this current insanity. It’s an attack on civilization.
“Can we trust the way this decision was made?” he asked. Watch:
Naturally, some of Carlson’s most notoriously dishonest critics mischaracterized his argument because of course they did:
Lol Tucker Carlson does not disappoint: opens his show whining that Chauvin was found guilty because the jury was intimidated and pressured by BLM protestors (he calls riots)- and warns people will leave the country, saying its "an attack on civilization. #whitewhine
— Amy Siskind 🏳️🌈 (@Amy_Siskind) April 21, 2021
MMFA had a similar hot take, which yours truly responded to:
Typical dishonesty from the liberal hacks at MMFA. He was not "characterizing public support for Floyd as an attack on civilization." https://t.co/W2KzvoPsvJ
— Sister Toldjah Le Pew 😁 (@sistertoldjah) April 21, 2021
And the unhinged criticisms would not be complete without throwing “white supremacist” into the mix:
White supremacist Tucker Carlson says that public support for George Floyd is an 'attack on civilization' https://t.co/CHuZg1LXqu
— Jon Cooper 🇺🇸 (@joncoopertweets) April 21, 2021
The discerning reader/viewer of the segment will note that Carlson’s actual issue here was concern about the jury being tainted/intimidated/influenced by incendiary Democrat politicians as well as rioters who spent months burning down city blocks across the country while chanting “no justice, no peace!”
While the judge in the trial, Peter Cahill, indicated he was confident that the jury had remained sequestered and thus was unaware of the remarks made by various Democrats including President Biden and Rep. Maxine Waters, questions still remain about whether such comments, the rioting that took place for months in Democrat-run cities, as well as media “reports” that revealed personal details on some of the jurors all may have had a chilling effect on the jury.
Thanks to Carlson raising such questions, that debate will play out in the coming weeks, much to the media’s/left’s chagrin. Because if there’s one thing these so-called purveyors of truth truly hate it’s when people have the nerve to start questioning their established narratives.