Fake News Propagandist outlet CNN quickly changed their tune in the wake of Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty on all counts.

Since the night of the incident and up until the verdict came in, CNN had been reporting against Kyle with lies.

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content From Stew Peters and the RVM Team, Become a PREMIUM USER

But now that many of their dwindling viewers have seen the evidence presented in the trial that was live-streamed by many outlets, their reporting suddenly and dramatically changed.

Almost none of the information that Sara Sidner reported in the video below was new information to anyone who had been following the incident and case since it happened on August, 25th 2020.

Could it be that they’re worried about a defamation lawsuit?

Should RNC Chair Ronna (Romney) McDaniel Be Replaced?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Red Voice Media, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

I mean, think about what they did to the MAGA Hat Kid, Nick Sandmann, and then what happened with his lawsuit against them.

As we previously reported, Nick has opened the door for Kyle to reach out to him.

WATCH:

Sign the petition: Ban Federal Vaccine Mandates! >

“This jury saw fit. We learned a lot of things in this trial that we should sort of go over, and I was just kind of reviewing some of the things that we learned in the trial that were not necessarily public knowledge before that. One, there has been a lot of talk, especially by politicians, about where Rittenhouse was the night of this shooting. And it turned out he was already in Kenosha. That he had family here, including his father, that the gun was here in Kenosha, he did not bring that over state lines. It turned out during this trial that we learned that the gun that he had a hold of he actually could legally possess according to the judge, and according to the law here, because of the measurements of the gun. Had it been shorter and a short-barreled gun, than it would have been illegal. But because it wasn’t, the judge said that that needed to be thrown out. And indeed, that charge of a minor in possession of a gun illegally was thrown out. In this case, the jury only looking at those who were injured, those who are endangered, and those who were killed the night in August that Rittenhouse ended up shooting people. We also learned that he was working here that night that he had stayed over that night here, and we saw some video of, for example, Joseph Rosenbaum, the first person that he shot and killed. We saw drone video high-resolution drone video that did not come into this case until five days into this trial, and that is under contention. There was a mistrial requested because of both what the defense called prosecutorial overreach, and they said they were going to file about this video that appeared very late in the game, the high-resolution version of it, but now none of that matters. They’re certainly not going to ask for a mistrial after their client has been acquitted in this case, but we did learn a lot of things from that video because it was very clear what was going on. There was a video of Rosenbaum chasing after Kyle Rittenhouse during this time when he had his gun, and at one point, Rittenhouse levels his gun at Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum continues towards him, and as he gets close to Kyle Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse fires his gun several times. We learned also in the trial that he was hit four times, and obviously, this is an AR-style rifle that has the capability of firing very quickly. But we have also learned that in this case, we saw one of the only person who was shot and did not die that night from Kyle Rittenhouse’s gone, and we heard from Gaige Grosskreutz.” – Sara Sidner, CNN Senior National Correspondent

***Follow Us On TELEGRAM***

Sar Sidner is one of CNN’s Senior National Correspondents. Either she is lying about just learning these things during the trial, or she isn’t very good at her job. Possibly both.

People online weren’t exactly fooled by Big Media’s reporting, as evidenced by their comments about this clip…

“Can someone explain how a major news network only “finds out” about the majority of this information from the trial when a lot of it was all known beforehand???”

“I thought journalists were supposed to find all this out before reporting?”

“Their ability to whip out a fair fact-based report as soon as they’re under a little duress proves they don’t believe their prior inflammatory narratives. This bit strengthens a defamation case IMO.”

“The only honest 2 minutes of television on CNN in the last 15 years.”

>>>Follow Us On GAB<<<

“CNN would have LEARNED all of this much sooner if they would have ASKED questions instead of fabricating their own answers and story.”

“A very naive question in this day and age… but aren’t journalists supposed to check their ‘facts’ BEFORE reporting them and NOT to report a ‘fact’ as a ‘fact’ unless they have two distinct sources with supporting evidence?”

“As a bunch of supposed reporters, couldn’t they have found all this out before the trial?”

“Most of this was known 48 hours after the shooting.”

“90% of the things she said “we learned in the trial” have been known for over a year because we all have eyes and watched the videos from that night.”

“This was all available before the trial. CNN would know this if they bothered to do their jobs.”

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.