So makes as much sense as inviting the killer of George Floyd to speak. Or OJ Simpson
Derek Chauvin was charged and convicted, had he been acquitted of any charges, you bet your ass he would’ve been doing speeches for the alt right group. OJ has literally done speeches (not pertaining to acting or football) after his trial and gained a huge amount of notoriety for that questionable ruling. Why would you prove my point like this? 🤣 Being a person of interest doesn’t just mean you’re an expert an a given topic, it could just be that you have something interesting to say and have a story people want to hear. And Rittenhouse’s story is pretty interesting, wouldn’t you say so?
Whatever the topic of conversation, surely they can find someone with some actual expertise on the topic instead of just someone whose claim to fame is being charged with a crime?
Do you even know the subject of these speeches? Why would you assume Rittenhouse doesn’t have the experience to talk about said topic? What if it was about being in one of the most famous cases of all time? 🤔
Getting charged for robbing a convenience store and avoiding punishment doesn’t make me a good choice to give a speech to people, unless that speech is “how to get away with robbing a convenience store.”
Please don’t tell me this is supposed to be a real question. You understand the difference between a typical felony charge and the killing of two individuals and wounding another during a civil right protest, right? Not to mention the precedent it will set in future self-defense cases. This comment is absurd.