Posted on 06/28/2013 9:11:39 AM PDT by IChing
Just before the break, the prosecution objected to a question asked of the witness by the defense. The judge overruled, but also told them it was the wrong objection, signaling to them to try another! Can she even do this, legally? They did try another, but it wasn't the one she was looking for.
I’d still like them to say it. That or “Objection Your Honor, the Judge is acting as counsel for the defense.”
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President.
MS. CROWLEY: Let me ask you for a more immediate answer, beginning with Mr. Romley (sic).
MS. CROWLEY: Let me — let me give the president a chance. Go ahead.
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, the next question is going to be for you here.
And Mr. Romney — Governor Romney, there'll be plenty of chances to go on, but I want to — we have all these folks —
Etc.,etc., etc.
CNN’s Candy Crowley, in utterly unprofessional fashion, would interrupt Romney’s reference to Benghazi and cite a transcript in such a way as to falsely turn Obama’s generic reference to terrorism into an explicit presidential condemnation of the Benghazi attacks as a terrorist action, and swing the momentum of the debate back to a stumbling Barack Obama.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir. .
So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
MS. CROWLEY: They did.
MR. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —
MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, I'm — I'm happy to —
MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — I —
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.
MS. CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, I'm happy to do that too.
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror'
On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama's chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" on the day after. "First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape," Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.
This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday's debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue -- and took Obama's side.
During the debate, Crowley affirmed Obama's assertion that he referred to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror on the day after.
After Romney correctly said it took Obama 14 days before Obama said the the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror, Crowley took Obama's side -- to an ovation from the town hall audience -- and she proclaimed Obama had indeed claimed the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the attacks in the White House Rose Garden.
On September 12, the day after the attacks, Obama did say the words "acts of terror" but he was not referring to the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
Crowley knew that on September 30 and she conceded it again hours after the debate when she went on CNN and said while Romney "was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word." But the damage had already been done.
With Obama's reelection on the line, Crowley seemed to have conveniently forgotten the facts she knew two weeks before when she grilled Axelrod in a way she should have Obama.
Here is how Crowley questioned Axelrod then:
CROWLEY: ... There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved. John McCain said it doesn't pass the smell test, or it's willful ignorance to think that they didn't know before this what was going on. Your reaction?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened. But when you're the responsible party, when you're the administration, then you have a responsibility to act on what you know and what the intelligence community believes. This was -- this is being thoroughly investigated.
When Axelrod tried to tell Crowley that the "president called it an act of terror the day after it happened," Crowley rejected the spin and corrected Axelrod, telling him that Obama said the the attacks were not "planned" and was "part of this tape," in reference to the obscure anti-Muhammad Internet video the Obama administration blamed:
CROWLEY: First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff.
AXELROD: As the director of national intelligence said on Friday, that was the original information that that was given to us. What we don't need is a president or an administration that shoots first and asks questions later.
Crowley then accused the Obama administration of shooting first (not telling Americans terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks) and asking questions later, which is what Obama accused Romney of doing when Romney released a statement
CROWLEY: But isn't that what happened?
AXELROD: And, you know, Governor Romney leaped out on this Libya issue on the first day, and was terribly mistaken about what he said. That is not what you want in a president of the United States. And as for Senator McCain, for whom I have great respect, he has disapproved of our approach to Libya from the beginning, including the strategy that brought Gadhafi to justice.
Crowley then called out Axelrod's spin again, saying the administration initially insisted the terrorist attacks were not preplanned:
CROWLEY: But this has to do not with the approach to Libya but with the murder of four Americans in Libya. And didn't the administration shoot first? Didn't they come out and say, listen, as far as we can tell, this wasn't preplanned, this was just a part of --
AXELROD: At this point, this is what we know, and we are thoroughly investigating. And that's exactly what you should do. That's what the responsible thing to do is. I was kind of shocked to see Representative King attack Ambassador Rice for what she said last Sunday here and elsewhere, because she was acting on the intelligence that was given to her by the intelligence community. To say she should resign -- she is one of the most remarkable, splendid public servants we have. That's thoroughly irresponsible.
There have been a number of cases where one side may have deserved a remedy, and probably could have won it had they made a proper argument, but for whatever reason they decided to make a different argument. IMHO, if a judge is unwilling to deny the remedy, the judge should dismiss the case without prejudice and instruct the party of the argument they should make. Unfortunately, in a number of cases, judges prefer instead to base a decision on the invalid argument.
For example, in Lawrence v. Texas, I would suggest that there isn't anything inherently unconstitutional about forbidding sodomy, but would suggest that defense should be entitled to argue that because the law is sufficiently sparsely enforced that sodomy without aggravating circumstances (e.g. doing it publicly or in such fashion as to cause a deliberate disturbance, etc.) is de facto legal, the defendants had a reasonable expectation that their conduct would be regarded as such, and the fact that they got singled out for arrest was not a consequence of their personal actions. The prosecution would then be entitled to introduce evidence if there was anything unusual about the defendant's conduct to justify the arrest [e.g. I think the defendants left their door open in this case; the prosecution may argue that doing so caused their actions to be observed by a cop who would have rather not seen them].
[Incidentally, I wish courts could recognize something that I suspect Miss Manners has recognized for decades: the right to look somewhere for something does not imply the right to "notice" things one is not looking for. If an overnight guest notices at 2am (after the host is asleep) that the toilet paper dispenser is empty, the guest has the right to look under the sink or in a bathroom closet to find more, but should regard any potentially-embarrassing items as "invisible". A search warrant to look for X should not imply a right to act upon most things not related to X; to say otherwise is to ignore the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment.]
Our power went out today just before they questioned the PA who saw Zimmerman the day after he was beaten. Did I miss much? Thanks
Easily explained: You're watching a different trial. This "judge" is an assistant prosecutor in this trial.
They already did. Got a cool million.
i don’t try tons of cases, but in my experience, when a judge leans toward one side that side is in trouble. Winners don’t appeal, only losers. If you shade your rulings in favor of the losing side there is less to appeal.
i don’t try tons of cases, but in my experience, when a judge leans toward one side that side is in trouble. Winners don’t appeal, only losers. If you shade your rulings in favor of the losing side there is less to appeal.
I may have goofed in a prior post, but i don’t believe the prosecution can appeal an acquittal.
Thank you for your reply...certainly makes sense!
The Zimmerman case and the OJ case are different.
In the OJ case the criminal case failed to convict him
of killing. The civil case had a lower standard of proof
and so OJ was found to have killed and was ordered tpay.
In the Zimmerman case the issue isn’t one of who killed
who...it’s a question of whether Zimmerman killed in self
defense. If he’s found not guilty that is a defacto legal
finding that his act was self defense, was legal and therefore
he did nothing that he could be sued for.....in a logical and
rational world that is.
In reality Zimmerman is toast....even if he wins in this court
the .gov and the system will keep coming after him till they
get the outcome they want.
In practical terms, in these kinds of high-profile cases, “double jeopardy” is the rule not the exception. Somehow “they” have decided that the U.S. Government can call murder “deprivation of civil rights” and haul you right back into court.
Always a good end of the day round up here with a lot of video
Thanks!
They can’t sue him civilly if he’s not convicted.
If they can’t convict GZ of murder, his self defense stands and the “Stand Your Ground” statute provides immunity from a civil suit.
He was not living with Sybrina Martin. On Feb 26, 2012, Tracy Martin was married to Alicia Stanley. Trayvon had been living with Alicia "90%" of the time" since Trayvon was about 3, and according to Alicia, ever since then, for the past 14+ years. Alicia Stanley Interview of Anderson Cooper - June 28, 2013.
We don't know where Tracy or Trayvon Martin were living in February 2013, but it was not in Sanford. Sanford is where a girlfriend, Brandi Green, lived. There was an interview a year or so ago that contained a claim that Trayvon was living with an uncle.
We don't know the real reason Trayvon was put on a bus in Miami and sent to Sanford. Was one of his mothers kicking him out? Did his uncle kick him out? Did Tracy volunteer? What is Brandy Green's attitude about having Trayvon as a houseguest? As a possible stepson?
I'm sorry? How does that work? For instance, OJ was acquitted in his criminal trial but indicted in his civil trial. There's no jeopardy attachment on an acquittal. Civil and criminal are different courts.
Thank you for the information. I misunderstood some data from the timeline apparently.
This case is a stain on the press and on the prosecutor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.