CLAY: We begin with some news that just happened. I’ll play the audio for you. We’ve been following the Kyle Rittenhouse case. One of the charges has been dismissed against Rittenhouse. It has to do with a gun charge. This is what it sounded like. Let’s play cut 20 as the judge in the case dismisses one of the counts against Kyle Rittenhouse.

JUDGE: This the firearm here now?

ATTORNEY: Yes.

JUDGE: You can either measure it or you can stipulate that it is… it does not meet what I stated are the requirements.

ATTORNEY: We are not disputing that the barrel is appropriate.

JUDGE: Is it legal?

ATTORNEY: It is not a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle, yes.

JUDGE: Either by barrel or by overall length?

ATTORNEY: Correct.

JUDGE: All right, and count 6 is dismissed.

CLAY: So, Buck, you’re a lot more of an expert to firearms than I am. How in the world did it get to this point if the gun didn’t fit the statutory authority under which he had been charged that it gets to all the way to this point in the trial before that is dismissed?

BUCK: The prosecution brought charges here, Clay, that were meant to send a political message. That’s why — and they were hoping to at least include a gun charge to give people all along a talking point where, “Oh, it was illegal for him to be there. It was illegal for him to even be carrying what he was carrying.”

False. It was not illegal for him to be there, nor was it illegal for him to be carrying this rifle. What they’re talking about here is, “Is it an SBR, short-barrel rifle?” and there are very specific qualifications for this based on the length of the actual barrel, right? That’s why I said, “Do we need to measure this?”

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: He’s carrying what’s essentially… He was carrying a pretty standard AR-15, which is a rifle, which under Wisconsin law is a semiautomatic rifle he was allowed to be carrying. So now we don’t have a gun charge. So this is… You know, people were saying, “Oh, well, maybe we’d get him on…” When I say “people,” I mean the leftists who hate him.

CLAY: Lesser charges sometimes happen.

BUCK: Rights. They were… I mean, they threw the kitchen sink and then some at him with the equivalent of, essentially, murder one.

CLAY: Right. Premeditated murder is not happening in this case. I don’t understand how that’s not dismissed based on the facts that have been established in the case.

BUCK: Right. They threw that in just because that was the prosecution’s way of saying, “Yeah, we hate this kid, too, libs! Don’t worry. We hate him. We’re gonna charge him with a crime that he could get mandatory life for.” I understand if that count were to be found by the jury to be guilty, he would spend the rest of his life in jail. That’s mandatory.

No parole, the rest of his life in prison. And the fact that they even included that in a case like this just goes to show you the level of malpractice. They never should have even brought charges against him. They overcharged him. They threw charges in that would be clearly — like this rifle one — disproven the moment it actually was tested in a court.

What they decided to do was use it all as just an opportunity to pile on and smear and see what they could get. So now it all comes down to the self-defense count. Now it all comes down to “Was Kyle Rittenhouse using force to stop a threat against him?” Thankfully, we have video so we know that the answer is yes. Also the politics of this — let’s all be very clear — are less toxic, less fissile than they would be if he had shot any minorities at the BLM protest.

CLAY: He shot three white guys, which I think people are just now becoming aware of in the last week because he’s been labeled a white supremacist. He’s been labeled a racist. I’ll be honest with you. When this story first came out, I presumed that he had shot Black Lives Matter protesters who were black because that is the way in which the media conveyed these charges and this story.

BUCK: Later on, we’ll talk about some other calls for censorship in the Big Media that affect yours truly, Clay. But, in the meantime, the New York Times is being the dishonest and evil commies that they are. But, in the meantime, I just would point out that they shut down this kid’s ability to raise funds. It would be like saying, “Okay. Yeah, you’re entitled to a defense, but every bank in America is going to say that your accounts are frozen.

“They’ll no longer carry any transactions for you.” Are you really entitled to a legal defense then? Are you really? Are you really getting the full benefit of your right to a trial as an American when platforms that are open to people decide you’re guilty and therefore they’ll kick you off? That’s what they did here.

CLAY: This was the time of the great wokening, which is now blowing up in Democrats’ faces.