With the George Zimmerman trial drawing near, his attorney is flaunting information about Trayvon Martin as a pothead, a possible thief and a gun lover. It’s questionable whether that information will ever make it into evidence at trial and the assistant state attorney has filed a motion for a gag order to prevent attorneys from discussing the case with reporters. But you’d never know any of that from watching Megyn Kelly’s interview with Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara on Thursday (5/23/13). To the contrary, she seemed determined to work in as much dirt on Martin as she could before she was ordered not to.
Kelly, an attorney herself, sounded more like a lawyer questioning her own client on direct examination than an interviewer. In other words, her questions were designed to elicit O’Mara’s talking points and ignore the other side. So she asked questions like, “What is the most significant piece of information” O’Mara wanted to put forth against Martin and commented, “It looks like you’re also going to use some of these text messages from Trayvon’s phone to show that he was a potentially violent guy who had some past violent episodes. What do the texts show in your view?” She also made a point of showing some of the photos O’Mara wanted displayed, such as a photo of a marijuana plant and a gun.
Kelly feigned objectivity by asking, “How is this relevant?” but it was really just an opportunity for O’Mara to answer that Martin was high the night he got shot by Zimmerman and was a “chronic user” of pot. But as Kelly surely knows, the issue is not whether Martin was high or loved guns but whether Zimmerman acted in self defense when he shot and killed the unarmed Martin.
Somehow, she never got around to bringing that up. In fact, it was O’Mara who kept qualifying his “evidence” by saying that it may not be admitted in court. But that was no problem for Kelly! She never even asked why not.
“You seem to forget the prt where Trayvon Broke GZ’s nose, pounded his head into the ground and tried to grab his legal gun.”
Only if you believe George Zimmerman. No evidence that Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman’s head into the ground except for Zimmerman’s claims. And who know what preceded that since we only have Zimmerman’s side. No evidence that Trayvon tried to grab the gun except for Zimmerman’s claims.
Your entire defense of Zimmerman seems to be believing everything Zimmerman says one time or another and cherry-picking minutiae out of various far-right blogs and websites to fit your defense. I don’t believe a damm thing Zimmerman says. He will say anything to protect his ass from being plundered in a jail. So I guess I disagree with your over 40-post defense of him cause I simply find him to be a liar.
That’s gotta be a record for a non-Obama, non-Benghazi, non-election thread.
And, it seems to be an indication that rightwingnuts are rather upset about not having the unfettered right to stalk and kill unarmed black teenagers.
Thus, Hairy Ball’s constant repetition of “Martin pounded Zimmerman’s head against the concrete and punched him in the face” — despite no evidence of that being shown in the above screengrab . . . and Russ DeMented’s claim that Zimmerman had “the authority to watch/monitor” Martin — as if the authority to watch/monitor someone also includes the authority to shoot them to death.
Anyway — even IF the teenaged Martin attacked the grown Zimmerman . . . could this mean Trayvon Martin was also “standing his ground”?
If so, I’d love to hear an explanation from our trolls of why it’s alright for Zimmerman to “stand his ground” — but not Martin. But, I have a feeling that will result in another 100+ posts . . .
And let’s be honest about this, no matter what “progressive” person I cite who agrees that these extreme right-wing blowhards should have their licenses to the air-waves revoked you will say that in your opinion that person is not a “progressive” so it doesn’t count that, that particular “progressive” agrees with me. You see, your actual point is that you don’t WANT me to be correct that other “progressives” also want to shut down some of the the right wing access to the air-waves experts from the air-waves because if you accept that other “progressives” feel the same way as I do feel t then you have to accept that I could be a progressive and you don’t want to accept that I’m a progressive because I disagree with you and as far as you’re concerned anyone who disagrees with you can’t be a progressive.
And I would point out that I gave a list of 4 things that I think should cause the revocation of a license to the air-waves so I never said that no republican should have access to the air-waves for the purpose of “rah-”rahing" their loyal faithful. I never said that republicans should not be allowed to talk. I said that there are 4 bad behaviors (at least) that should result in the revocation of a license to the air waves and I do believe that Fox news is guilty of at least one of those 4 things so I think their license to the air-waves should be revoked. At minimum, they should not be allowed to use the word “News” in their titles of their shows or in their broadcasts in my opinion.
That said, sorry for having filled your inbox. I think we must have added 30 posts today alone…
Russell, I accept your apology for mixing my posts with Bemused.
However, the post you did properly address to me indicates you may not have read the responses I gave to you regarding Jay Rockefeller and the Althouse blog.
I’ll say again that Jay Rockefeller is not a progressive by any definition that I know. I would say that someone like Bernie Sanders would be a lot closer to that definition. Barbara Lee definitely would fit that description. Ron Dellums would also be an appropriate politician to note for his progressive values. Rockefeller is a Democrat, albeit a moderately conservative one. I wouldn’t depend on him as a representative of the progressive left.
I also did not say that you were “the only progressive” who wants to censor people. I said that I do not feel that the backing of censorship is compatible with progressive philosophy. I’m saying that you may feel you are sympathetic to progressive causes and issues, but the means by which you are pursuing them may be antithetical to the ends. I don’t agree with the notion of censorship and I asked if you would be able to provide examples of real progressive voices advocating such a thing. People like Amy Goodman and other hosts at Pacifica Radio. People like Jeff Cohen, Norman Solomon and the people who have followed them at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. People like Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive. Writers like Joshua Frank and Jeffrey St. Clair of Counterpunch. I have yet to hear any of these people or groups advocate for this kind of approach and I strongly doubt that any of them ever would or could.
Regarding a Facebook page opposing Rush Limbaugh, I think I’ve heard of such a thing, but again, I don’t think it’s consistent with progressive thinking.
As for your discussion of the Althouse blog piece, I believe you just stated “the fact of the matter is that I did not pay any attention to who it came from and I only read a couple statements inside of the article”. Which makes some sense, because Ann Althouse’s piece is actually a very sober-minded refutation of the point you are making. She’s critiquing a Daily Caller piece that it sounds like you would agree with, and she’s poking so many holes in it that I don’t know that the ship could stay afloat afterward. I didn’t say that you were citing a right wing source. I said that you were citing a blog that was criticizing a right wing outlet, and the blog was actually saying the exact opposite of what you were saying. Your admission that you didn’t read it would explain how you didn’t know this fact. But I wouldn’t double down on your opinion about it under the circumstances.
I’ll assume the continued grouping of insults afterward was more reflective of the other discussion and not intended toward myself.
And for the one who tried to tell me I should acknowledge inconsistent injuries because they “came from the prosecutors office,” thanks for ignoring the part where there are three sets of injuries…
And all three of them are different patterns and levels of severity. That points to several theories, all of which end with that we have three pictures of three different injuries all passing themselves off as the same thing.
But please- Don’t let things like that, or the small fact that that’s one of the mildest lies the right has been caught in regarding Trayvon. get in the way of your delusional ad hominem.
1. Your statement that my posts are rants and somehow different from your posts or anybody else’s post is false and it’s a rude insult. You are a rude person to anyone who disagrees with you. And I find your statement that Zimmerman was out “looking for black blood” to be a rude racist statement and it demonstrates that you aren’t fit to be a licensed social worker so I hope you are not licensed.
2. If you’re really sorry for having “butted” your nose into kevin’s and my discussion then you shouldn’t have done it.
3. And the most likely reason that Zimmerman’s story has changed is that he was pretty excited the night of the incident after nearly being killed by Martin, getting beat up, and ultimately having to kill someone. This is the kind of stuff that kind of throws off someone’s perceptions and thinking.
4. The main things that matters is the photographs of Zimmerman and the autopsy report of Martin. The photographs of Zimmerman showed Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman and the autopsy report of Martin shows that Zimmerman never assaulted Martin with the exception of the self-defense gunshot wounds.
5. And you are wrong. I did not base my position that African Americans are the only segment of society on a “feeling” rather I based my position on the statistical facts. Here are the facts again:
If either of us was basing our position on feeling rather than fact it was you. My position that the segment of society that wants Zimmerman punished is essentially the African American segment of society was based on statistical fact so my position was not racist at all. My position was, and is, simply fact. Your position is contrary to fact so your position is clearly the position that is based on some kind of “feeling.” Sorry but it’s true.
Here are the statistics that show a high % of African Americans are insisting that George Zimmerman is guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin:
And here is a poll showing that non-African Americans think that George Zimmerman is not guilty:
And here is another poll showing that African Americans and non-African Americans have sharply different views regards to the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman:
Bemused, all I’m doing is stating what the polls are showing. Why would you call me a racist for that? It seems mean to call someone a racist just because he stated statistical facts.
The very fact that you felt the need to bundle African Americans into a category like that makes you a racist in my book. It was not necessary to your argument, you see, but you had to do it because you feel that way.
Now, for the record, I’m white with a touch of AmerIndian and I’m pretty sure Zimmerman was out for some black blood and got some. Not my fault, he was too stupid to get his story straight and the cops decided he was probably lying. They’ll work that out at the trial.
@kevin: Sorry for having butted in on your talk with Russell. I was fed up finding his rants and your patient replies in my mail box. My bad.
Making a false allegation (racist) against me and insulting me just because I mistakenly though that Keven posted something to me that was actually posted by you demonstrates that you are too rude and intolerant.
Sorry. You are right. It was not you who made the moronic statement that I’m a racist simply because I disagree with a segment of our party. It was bemused who made that statement. So Bemused everything I’ve said about Kevin Koster calling me a racist actually applies to you instead of Kevin. Bemused you are either:
1. A lying phony crying wolf
2. An ignorant person talking about concepts that you don’t know the meaning of.
I think it’s #1. I think you are a lying phony who knows that nothing I’ve said substantiates me as a racist but you just figured you’d throw that out there because you want to accuse anyone who ever disagrees with African Americans a racist. You’re evil and sick for using that strategy.
As a person with over 40 years of experience as a sociologist (yes, I’m that old!), I wonder why you took up social studies. Fact is, you don’t seem (IMO) to have much of a capacity for listening. A debate is an exchange of views, but you haven’t budged one iota from your initial positions. Not one iota. That’s not a debate, son, it’s a diatribe.
And you answer Kevin’s patient posts with insults while at the same time complaining bitterly that others are insulting you. The only one throwing out insults is you, yourself and you.
And I won’t gratify you by starting to do so.
1. A lying phony crying wolf about me being a racist.
2. You have no idea the meaning of the concepts you are throwing about.
One or the other applies to you.
1. I already posted that progressive Senator Jay Rockefeller wants to see Fox go bye-bye. That’s sufficient to disprove your bs. You said I’m the only progressive who would like to see some of these extreme right-wingers vanish and you are proved wrong so I’m done with that issue. Progressive senator Jay Rockefeller proves me right and proves you wrong.
2. And just to sweeten my point here’s a liberal facebook page dedicated to shutting down Rush Limbaugh:
3. And as far as one of my links coming from a right-wing source goes – the fact of the matter is that I did not pay any attention to who it came from and I only read a couple statements inside of the article, one of those statements was coming from a “Guardian” journalist who seemed to be saying that Fox should be shut down. Keep in mind that my point is that many of us progressives want to shut down Fox and these other extremist right-wing hate-mongers and your position is that I am the only progressive who wants to shut these right-wing hate-mongers down so this proves I’m not really a progressive. Your point has been disproved because it’s a fact that there are other progressives who want to shut down these extremist right-wing hate-mongers. You’re wrong; I’m right. Stop arguing your MISTAKEN position.
4. Oh and I just said that your position is MISTAKEN so that means I’m a racist according to you because merely telling another democrat they they are mistaken makes me a racist according to you.
You are an embarrassment to the democratic party. You’re the kind of fool who causes us to lose elections because you defend indefensible positions and make all of us democrats look like we’re out of touch.
I’m a social work major. I use the term African American because it is the appropriate and progressive term to use.
There is nothing racist about my statement that a large segment of the democratic party (African Americans) are promoting a bad idea when it comes to the Trayvon Martin situation. You either don’t know what a racist statement is or you are intentionally crying wolf. You seem to think that anything that you don’t want to hear is a racist statement. My statement is not a racist statement; rather is is a dissenting statement. Calling my statement racist is about as incorrect and phony as Christine Odonnell calling Piers Morgan a sexist just because Piers Morgan asked Christine Odonnell some questions she didn’t want to answer. He was simply asking her, a politician, reasonable questions and she started griping that he was being sexist because she figured that accusing him of sexism, even though there was no sexism happening, would allow her to prevail in the discussion. She was a phony on that issue then and now you are a phony using the racism issue against me. She played the sexism card even though there Piers Morgan was not doing anything sexist and you are now playing the racism card against me even though I’m not saying or doing anything racist.
I disagree with African Americans when it comes to the Trayvon Martin issue and I think that their position is a bad idea. That having been said, I do agree with African Americans on many other issues. What you are suggesting is that if I ever disagree with African Americans then that means I’m a racist. You’re saying that every complaint African Americans make is appropriate, that their complaints are never a mistake, and that anyone who says that sometimes their complaints are a mistake is a racist. You’re a twisted and evil person for saying that because you are saying that merely disagreeing with African Americans from time to time makes a person a racist. It is NOT racist to say that sometimes African Americans, and any other group, could be wrong, and it’s dishonest/phony of you to say that by me merely stating that African Americans are mistaken when it comes to the Trayvon Martin makes me a racist. Again, you either don’t know the meaning of the word racist or else you are a dishonest person intentionally crying wolf.
I noted that Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with him and Martin going down to the ground, and Zimmerman getting punched. You don’t know that Zimmerman didn’t start the fight, and in fact we do know that had Zimmerman not followed and stalked Martin, there would have been no confrontation and no fight. So what we’re likely to see and hear in court is that Zimmerman’s actions DID result in the fight.
I’m not sure how or why you are conflating my discussion of Zimmerman’s attorneys’ attempts to stall the trial. I said nothing to equate the prosecution’s decision to go right to trial with the defense move to delay the trial. I noted that neither you nor I could know what was in the DA’s head unless we were in that office. I add here that not every murder trial starts with a Grand Jury. Plenty of them go right to trial without needing to take the other step.
I’m aware that the defense attorneys are trying to allege all sorts of things by the prosecution, but this is normal in litigation. Of course they’re going to accuse the other side of not being forthcoming. Of course they’re going to say they have to delay because it’s all the other side’s fault. And while they do so, the defense is also trying to assassinate Trayvon Martin’s character in public by using his text messages to suggest he deserved to die. This practice by the defense has been condemned as an attempt to influence the potential jury pool.
I don’t know that I’ve been dishonest here – I believe I’ve been quite forthright with you. I’m still waiting for you to be able to justify your assertions regarding progressives and liberals and how you can reconcile progressive philosophy with the censorship you have called for. I do agree with you that one of the sides in the upcoming Zimmerman trial is showing signs of desperation. But it isn’t the prosecution. As I’ve noted, we’ll learn more once they finally start the trial.
1. Zimmerman did not start the fight. That’s obvious by the fact that Martin has no injuries except to his knuckles from when Martin was punching Zimmerman. It is Zimmerman who has all of the injuries. Martin does not have even one other injury on him (besides the gun shot wound) so that means that Zimmerman never touched Martin so Zimmerman could not have started the mess.
2. You are intentionally mixing up facts. You are saying that because Zimmerman is trying to delay the trial this proves that the prosecutors did not intentionally avoid trying to get a grand jury indictment because they knew they couldn’t get one. These are two different issues and it is VERY dishonest of you to try to pretend that they are the same issue. At the time that the prosecutors avoided a grand jury trial that was quite awhile ago whereas the defenses desire to delay the trial has to do with recent events surrounding the evidence. The defense has still not been given some items (bad faith by the prosecution as far as I’m concerned) and the prosecutions audio experts are claiming to hear stuff on the audio recording of the 911 call that is not there. The defense wants to time to look into that bs. I have heard that audio over and over and over, and at hugely loud settings, and the things that the prosecutor’s audio experts are saying are on the tape are NOT on that tape. Those jackals are lying and this just goes to show how desperate to win the prosecution is.
That’s about as racist as one can get. Like I said earlier, you simply don’t walk the talk as a liberal, progressive democrat.
The post, to save people the time here, is actually a critique of the Daily Caller trying to allege what you are saying – that liberals want to shut down Fox News. Althouse carefully goes through the DC article and shows it to be completely wrong-headed. Her conclusion is that the Daily Caller article is “weak” and the material that is being cited is “mild”.
Do you have anything from the progressive journalists and writers I have cited here?
Can you show me a real progressive taking such a position – Joshua Frank? Cindy Sheehan? Kevin Zeese? Barbara Lee? Any of them?
And you are the rudest person on this thread.
And everything you say is based on a desperate wish to vindicate a person accused of murder whose stories don’t quite track properly. Those inconsistencies are what prompted the forces of law to arrest and arraign Zimmerman.
Finally: “Watching” is not the same thing as stalking especially when associated with vigilante attitude that could be scary even during the day. How would you feel if someone started watching/following you at night? Especially if that person was excited as Zimmerman clearly was in that 911 call? I’d probably be so scared that I’d start running and Zimmerman would probably have shot me in the back.
And you would have justified that how? Oh, of course. She was clearly doing something wrong or she wouldn’t have started running.
Your obsession is equal only to that of Harry: are you the same person perhaps?
It looks like you aren’t keeping up with the good ideas we progressives have and the reason you aren’t keeping up with our good ideas is that you have allowed yourself to get bogged down in a bad idea being promoted by a large segment (African Americans) of our democratic party. Kevin the thing is that sometimes a segment of our party is right and sometimes it’s wrong. The Trayvon Martin situation is one of the times when the segment of our party that wants a certain outcome is wrong, wrong, wrong. They are advocating death for the most minor of offenses – watching someone else. They are saying that it’s OK that Trayvon Martin tried to kill Zimmerman just because Zimmerman was watching him. How in the heck can you march to that violent and ugly drumbeat? Of course it’s NOT OK to try to kill someone just because the person is watching you and why do I have to tell you this? It seems to me that any intelligent moral human being would be able to realize this without even having to think about it. I can’t believe I have to tell people that it’s NOT ok to kill a person just because the person is watching you. Please.
I’m not going to parse the difference between the trial and a Grand Jury situation, as neither you nor I are qualified to know what the DA’s office was thinking. Unless you’re saying that you work there, which I strongly doubt.
As for the notion of riots, I doubt that would happen in any case. I wouldn’t be surprised to see protest marches, but I doubt you’ll see a riot – and I don’t think there would have been one in any case – just a lot of very angry people. And as it turns out, there is cause for a trial here – Zimmerman’s account of what happened doesn’t line up with what the witnesses saw and heard. Your citation of the injuries only shows that the two guys were in a fight – one that Zimmerman instigated and was losing before he pulled the gun. Zimmerman’s injuries are understandable for a situation where he went to the ground with Martin and then got punched several times. Had Martin been somehow trying to just slam his head into the ground, as Zimmerman has alleged and AM radio hosts have seized on, I doubt Zimmerman would have been in any condition to walk away that night. But we’ll learn more at trial.
You say that a lot of progressives want Fox taken off the air. Please show me where Amy Goodman, Larry Bensky or anyone at Pacifica Radio has ever advocated for Fox News to be removed from the airwaves. Having lived in Berkeley for 7 years of my life and having spent time at both KPFA and KPFK, I’d be interested to hear where anyone at those prominent progressive institutions advocated for censorship.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up Ann Coulter’s disastrous attempt to tour Canada in 2010. She wasn’t censored, although there were definitely protestors who were making sure other people knew how hateful her rhetoric is. I have no problem with those protestors voicing their concerns. And according to the Canadian university in question, it was Coulter’s people who cancelled one of the events – due to lack of people planning to attend outside of the protestors.
It’s totally appropriate to be fed up with right wing pundits who say offensive things, and it’s totally appropriate to be very public about it. And advertisers may well choose to withdraw their funding for offensive speech, as many have done in backing away from Rush Limbaugh. Please remember that I’m not defending offensive comments. I’m saying that the solution to them is to counter them and show them up for what they are. Once you do that, the bullies tend to melt away on their own.
I’m not sure what you mean about “knee jerk support” for any left wing position. You probably have not read very many of my posts – I’m an independent thinker. I can name several issues where I differ with left wingers. I don’t automatically agree with everything that Amy Goodman or Doug Henwood says. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. So that shoe doesn’t fit.
Please look at the various witness accounts of the Martin killing before you assume that Zimmerman’s account is the unvarnished truth. The stories don’t line up, with Zimmerman’s being the key one with holes in it. The trial should clarify matters considerably.
Regarding your comment about rude posters, I actually agree that it’s inappropriate to call people names, no matter what position you’re holding. That’s why I have never done so here. I haven’t criticized all the posters here, because in most of the cases, they were responding to nasty comments such as telling them to leave the country. That said, I don’t post here to participate in an insult contest. My comments were directed to you, specifically due to the inaccurate statements and unfortunate comments you were making. You seem not to understand that those comments are not appropriate – and calling me names or accusing me of “censorship” is not going to get you around that problem, unfortunately.
The prosecutors are scared of the possibility of racial riots if Zimmerman is not put on trial and that is why the trial is taking place at all. Again, if the prosecutors really thought that they had a valid case against Zimmerman they would have gone for a grand jury indictment but they intentionally opted out of going for a grand jury indictment because they were scared they could not get a grand jury indictment.