Skipping the very some variations of wonder and schaudenfreude expressed at divisions and splintering in the conspiracy corner of qanon — which basically land on one party walking away to protect their grift from the other party’s grift — none of this is anything much more than gawking at the unfortunate figures of Lin Wood and Michael Flynn.

Moving to something a little less puzzlement is warranted even as there is some puzzlement and wonder on some permutations — the after case moves of Rittenhouse, and here I sense the need to maintain a political context leaves some people blinded. See it expressed here:

I have to confess, I can’t figure Kyle Rittenhouse out. One minute, his lawyers are repeatedly throwing out a Tucker Carlson film crew. The next minute, Rittenhouse is sitting down for an interview with Carlson, and is traveling to Mar-a-Lago to meet Trump.

Whatever the case, it looks like one element of the deplorable world is turning hard on one of its latest heroes. Apparently the QAnon world that Rittenhouse dared speak ill of one of its top luminaries—his former lawyer, Lin Wood. It turns out that Rittenhouse and Wood are currently in a legal battle over the money raised to get Rittenhouse out on bail last year.

This here is kind of the story behind the Rittenhouse case in a micro-cosm.

And when the shoe fits —

Attorney Lin Wood said he’ll sue Mark Richards, Kyle Rittenhouse’s attorney, after he called him an “idiot” on CNN on Friday, Newsweek reported.

In an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Richards said he and Wood “went head-to-head” and Wood would probably sue him. He said Wood was an “idiot” for letting Rittenhouse talk to The Washington Post while he was charged with homicide.

Richards said he was concerned that Wood and attorney John Pierce were “basically trying to I think whore this kid for money, for their own causes.”

“They kept him in Illinois to fight an extradition that was unwinnable cause they were raising tons of money on him,” Richards said.

The marker of a Trumpian attorney, or anyone so closely aligned with Trump — she was in it for herself, ready with a political fight and moving into a political fight. Rittenhouse’s winning attorney knew to de-politicize the thing — the facts were on his side if not the politics — and provided better service to his client.

The next part of the equation is either more or less simple. The attorney is saying the right things — professional person after all, where Rotten house sends mixed signals — but then again, he is a mixed person at a rather strange crossroads — what can you expect? The choice of getting interviewed by Tucker Carlson easily defendable as getting your story out via the most friendly interviewer you can — Rittenhouse has no duty to get drilled with loaded questions from Rachel Maddow. He will say things a sector of the populace will not believe either way. His stop over Trump is a tad bit harder to square as relatively apolitical, but if a President wants to meet you, who will deny the meeting?

You move into the revelations. His damning photo with the Proud Boys, I gather a clouding for a lot of people to not step back from that “white supremacist on the rampage” storyline — gets shunted off to a set-up. The dastardly Lin Wood again — take the money and run in pulling up a cause celebre.

Most amusing is his claim to have been enthralled with Andrew Yang. Both believable and not verifiable — he wishes to paint himself out of the Trump orbit and is giving a realistic explainer on how politics sometimes operates — skip from Nader to Dean to Ron Paul to … Whoever expresses threads of discontent. It is a political type. Does this mean anything to the radicals at the college he is taking courses from who want him not to get educated? Of course not, but they are not tractable.

Dipping about in more fixed commentary, and it is hard to become depressed.

Nicholas Sandmann, a high school student from Kentucky who sued media outlets for their depiction of his interaction – wearing a Maga cap – with a Native American activist on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington also came to personify grievances on the right.

Sure. Largely stemming out of an inaccurate media depiction of the incident. Today’s continued comments from his fifteen minutes of fame show him to be as tiresome as activist David Hogg — I have no idea if Rotten house has any ground to sue for defamation, but if he does this is the trap that awaits him.

This poses an interesting question.

Kathleen Belew, a historian of American white power movements and author of Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America, argues that the fact that Rittenhouse’s trial is being read as a victory by more mainstream components of the right has the potential to serve as a rallying cry for increased militant vigilantism against US racial justice protesters.

Justice is blind, and the proper answer in litigating the issues to this problem is a shrug and a “So–?”. If it makes up for it, the author for this Guardian interview is able to put in a caveat that militant vigilantes will come right up against the law and find it does not cover them.

Her historical purview is interesting round about here —

The thing that we have to remember is that first of all, the idea of the lone wolf came from the white power movement in the 1980s with the express purpose of confusing everybody about what this movement was. It follows an action called “leaderless resistance” that is effectively cell-styled terror and both of those things are meant to direct public attention away from what it is, which is just an interconnected social movement.

I have seen JFK Conspiracy tropes from the 60s and 70s mock the “lone gunman” line, so this trope moves back past the 80s bad guys. But things get entangled — thread the Yang to Trump and out with Gosar knocking and pulling him in on his door if the radicals succeed in getting him kicked out of their university.

And this gets us stuck… The dilemma of contemporary political discoursing, everything outside one Overton window set ready to get flicked aside as parroting someone sinistet… 

The “media” has changed. Russia and China are stirring the pot and brainwashing many of propaganda to slant the truths—to create huge dissention .

This according to ex FBI person who studies this……

When roughly half of “influence” comes from outside —then democracy has a problem.

“Divide & conquer: A sample of 32,315 pro-Rittenhouse hashtag tweets, Nov 19-20, showed 29,609 with disabled geolocation. Of those, 17,701 were listed as “foreign”, but a deep scrub revealed most of those were in Russia, China, and the EU. “

Down this lay a kind of insta-verdict when confronted by someone with opposing views… I lie on the right side, and there must be something evil bringing you to the wrong side.