WND’s Cashill Serves Up More George Floyd-Derek Chauvin Revisionism

WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill has shown himself to be on the wrong side of history by supporting and defending Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd. That continued in his Oct. 4 column, which actually began by attacking anti-racism activist Ibram X. Kendi, gloating over the alleged “fall of the House of Kendi – the $40 million Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University” in the wake of an investigation into the center’s operations. That attack didn’t age well given that the investigation found no issues with how the center’s finances were managed, though the center was restructred. Cashill then used the turmoil at Kendi’s center to engage in some revisionism:

With Kendi, Black Lives Matter, and other race hustlers forcing open the eyes of their funders, those funders may want to take a hard look at the incident that forced open their pockets. The media should shine the necessary light,

The major media being corrupt beyond redemption, the task falls to the conservative media. Unfortunately, at the time they were nearly as complicit in the railroading of Derek Chauvin and his fellow officers as their mainstream brethren.

He was particularly annoyed with Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett, who committed the offense of reporting on Chauvin’s guilt; Cashill claimed that Jarrett “seemed to be either blind to the facts or beholden to the suits upstairs,” then claimed that Chauvin didn’t deliberately kill Floyd:

There was no pressure on Floyd’s airways. There was pressure, however, on the one doctor brave enough to testify in Chauvin’s defense. Allies of the prosecution sought to ruin his career.

Cashill rehashed his earlier claim that medical examiner Andrew Baker changed an initial finding that Floyd did not suffer asphyxiation to a later finding that he did due to political pressure:

In the frenzied atmosphere of Minneapolis, Baker feared not only for his reputation, but also for his life. He gave the prosecution the wiggle room they needed to hang Chauvin.

Baker was not the only one with reason to be scared. During the trial, the judge had good reason to fear for his life as did the witnesses, the attorneys and the jurors most of all.

Openly apprehensive, the jurors much too quickly found Chauvin guilty on all counts. Watching the verdict come down, I recalled Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ caution from a century ago: “Mob law does not become due process of law by securing the assent of a terrorized jury.”

Or, Holmes might have added, the assent of a terrorized media.

In fact, Baker testified during the trial of three other Minneapolis police officers in Floyd’s death that he faced no political pressure to add or delete anything in Floyd’s autopsy report and that his learning about neck compression– the method Chauvin used to incapacitate Floyd — is what caused him to rethink his conclusions. But that doesn’t fit Cashill’s narrative of exonerating Chauvin, so he ignoted it.

Cashill’s column is headlined “Time to rethink the martyrdom of George Floyd” — but he wants you to think that Chauvin, who killed a guy, is somehow the real martyr.