tell you this let me tell you this that even let me let me let me do this let me let me draw the power of the you try to draw throughout the program and that is with iraq do you claim that no one in iraq wanted the western intervention does that make that was an intervention ok i say they've done this there was quite a considerable people of the iraqi people who wanted the west to remove but how. valuable is the value of this that make it so after one group of people ignoring another group of people because as a gabrielle stablish i think we could agree a lot of points out there also you mentioned on syria and how did you arrive on the demands of the revolution and. under the sun do you recognize our d.c. a chance of people disagreeing with you because it looks to me that you have either my way or no way at all but you seem to be a lot i'll tell you that like george w. bush that we mentioned earlier he had only one very righteous view that he's a vision was right and not given thought before going hundreds of thousands of people to try to implement that you're still incensed that big a

>> first of all let me deal with, let me -- i will answer. [shouting] let me deal with six p. a week. >> order. we've got to listen own order to hear. prime minister. >> sixty a week am here are the figures. since he became leader, 8 million from unite, 4 million from gmb, 4 million from unison. they bought the policy. they bought the candidates and they bought the leader. now, i have long supported, i have long supported caps on donations. i think we should have caps on donations and they should apply to trade unions, the businesses, and individuals. but let me say this, let me say this. there is -- [shouting] >> order. order. there's still far too much shouting. on both -- on both sides of the chamber. the prime minister, i think he is concluding his answer. the prime minister. >> let me be frank with them. there is a problem with the 5000-pound cat and it is this. it is this. it would imply, it would imply a massive amount of taxpayer support for political parties. and, frankly, mr. speaker, i don't see why the result of a trade union scandal should be every taxpayer in the

i have tenure so let me be blunt. we are speaking about building a system which we call mass incarceration. we have many of people who don't need to be locked up and that is to provide public safety. that's one of the reasons i see bail as so critical. it's not a sexy topic. it's one of the reasons it's languaged for decades. it's really the beginning that leads to incarceration and i would suggest to you that what happens beginning with the failure of the bail reform effort of 60s to achieve a constitutional right to bail. i would like to come back to that because if the constitutional rights can find to incarcerate, they can talk about bail. i think what is so dangerous about that moment and it came to a surface in the bail reform act of 1984, the federal law, the birth of preventative detention which one thought was clearly unconstitutional and then became a public good that changed the whole view of a system. now we live in a justice preemptive justice, but they will commit other crimes in the future. i would say

i'm from los angeles county and let me tell you bail schedules are very high out there. but we work with the families, co-workers, and employers that want that person out of jail where they can continue to flourish in their society. the issue of -- well the pretrial is there is a misconception about which is fair and which isn't fair. i have to say for the sake of public safety, we offer a little bit of the bjs study that our statistics is true because we incorporate other people with a part of the skim in the game, if you will, the family and members and we do a better job of seeing people return to court. we don't judge, we just return them to court and make their appearances. >> there are a lot of organizations throughout the state that, you know, kind of pull their resources together to be able to engaged in some lobbying, i think it true for some associations and there is some lobbying for the california's association. do you know how much your organization spends on lobbying? >> we don't even have a paid lobbyist. but the sure ityty company there is a guess. i have

>> let me first off thank you, matt, let me first say i feel like a minority among the panel.but i am not overwhelmed by it. i think we have a little misconception here and what we forget all along, the public, the taxpayers. the bail industry provides a service to the criminal justice system and has here in the united states. we do this without cost of the taxpayers. none of this burden is on the taxpayers. and what i see happening, and i have had discussions with the aclu and pretrial on. it's not a cookie-cutter situation. bail is very personal. to have a policy or government entity responsible for arresting you and adjudicating your case and the sentencing and bail. there no check balances involved in this. i have sat in los angeles and waiting for the sheriff department for a gentleman that had to get to his job or lose his job. and 36 hours later he's still in custody when he could have been bailed out through corporate bail. our industry brings to the state of california revenues in excess of 11 to $20 million to state revenues. and what i am hearing is that this moveme

let me let me let me do this let me let me draw the power of the you try to draw throughout the program and that is with iraq do you claim that no one in iraq wanted the of the western intervention does that make the was an intervention ok i say that it does it was quite a considerable people of the iraqi people who wanted the west to remove it how. valuable is the you know does that make you. after one group of people ignoring another group of people because as a again every step i think we can agree a lot of points out there. on syria and how did you arrive on the demands of the revolution how did you respond to the fans of the song do you recognize our d.c. accounts of people disagreeing with you because it looks to me that you have either my way or no way at all but you seem to be a lot i'll tell you that like george w. bush that we mentioned earlier he had only one very righteous view that he's a vision of what's right and what you didn't thought before going hundreds of thousands of people to try to implement that you're still on the fence that big armed resistance was a legitimat

i have tenure so let me be blunt. we are speaking about building a system which we call mass incarceration. we have many of people who don't need to be locked up and that is to provide public safety. that's one of the reasons i see bail as so critical. it's not a sexy topic. it's one of the reasons it's languaged for decades. it's really the beginning that leads to incarceration and i would suggest to you that what happens beginning with the failure of the bail reform effort of 60s to achieve a constitutional right to bail. i would like to come back

and let me pick this off for you. >> okay! oh, this is beautiful. so, tell me -- [ leaves squeaking ] it's squeaking. so, when -- i know, and i look for an artichoke when i buy it, i love it when it squeaks. it speaks to me -- that means freshness, right? >> that means freshness, and also the stem, if the stem is rubbery, you know it's a few days old. >> if it's dry and if it's wilted. >> dry, rubbery, wilted, it won't squeak like -- >> and, certainly, when the leaves become a little brown, that's a no-no. >> that's a no-no. >> that means it's been around for a few weeks. >> right. and with artichokes, it's okay for the leaves to spread out, especially during the summer months -- they will spread out, but it won't affect the heart. the hearts will still be... >> right, so you kind of peel them off, and then you cook them the way you want it. >> yes, just like what you do, many different ways. >> beautiful -- they're gifts of nature. verdura imbottite -- >> tanya: or farcite. >> farcite -- stuffed. any way you put it, they're stuffed. in italy, the li

tell you this let me tell you this that even let me let me let me do this let me let me draw the power of the you try to draw throughout the program and that is with iraq do you claim that no one in iraq wanted the the of the western intervention does that make the was an intervention ok i think it does it was quite a considerable people of the iraqi people who wanted the west to remove it how. valuable is the value of this that make your. after one group of people ignoring another group of people because as a again every step i think we can agree. on serious how did you arrive on the defense of the revolution how did you respond to it under the sun do you recognize our d.c. a chance of people disagreeing with you because it looks to me that you have either my way or no way at all but you seem to be a lot of like george w. bush that we mentioned earlier that he had only one very righteous view that he's a vision what's right and what you didn't thought before going hundreds of thousands of people to try to implement that you're still incensed that the armed presence was a legitimate wa

was behind nine eleven i think let me ask you a question do you hind nine eleven mr kuchel i mean ask answer me example question who is behind nine eleven i give you the courtesy of being on your show you should give me the courtesy of answering one simple question of ok i'm leaving behind i hate i do you tend to believe in this conventional narrative of al qaeda and osama bin laden being behind. that tragic and qur'an this attack but the question is whether the death of those people justified hundreds of of thousands. people who were killed after wards and i don't think the goals that were set out before that war were actually achieved during that war and that's the biggest problem that you've been very critical of radical groups trying to impose that point of view and i totally agree with you but i think the way and the means the democracies employ i know it's much better i disagree if you equate barbarism and religious fundamentalism with the principles of democracy i think we've lost if we accept your point of view that some kind of moral equivalence between forces of darkness and

>> let me reframe it. what do you do about, if i asked you if you were mentally ill and you say no and that actually becomes a way of diagnosing you as mentally ill, doesn't that present a lot of problems? people, and that actually is one of the things that i think is most concerning. now, obviously there are people who are very ill and there is a lot of debate about the terms that we use for psychiatric illness. now, if you tell me, edward, you have this diagnosis and if you don't believe you have that diagnose, it's reinforcing my belief that you have this diagnosis. that's problematic. but and you can see that really the issue, i think there is a reason this is interesting because it treks back to the real issue of mental health which is what was the responsibility of society to provide services and supports for psychiatric illness. we want to ask that question, with should ask what was the rate at which we fund services and supports for mental illness, what was the range of services we provide. the que

let me summarize, if the writer hon. gentleman's attack on me, we are not doing things we wanted to do but questioning. the prime minister doesn't know his facts. from february of 2010, and cigarette packaging. and here is the difference, my hon. friend moved to that position in 2010, had to be in favor of cigarette packaging. and can he now answer the question, has he ever had a conversation for lincoln crosby and cigarette packaging. and never been beyond anything but if he is for lobbying scandals why doesn't he tried to effect that his policies, they even bought and paid for his leadership. they could do something about it. the whole of the country will have heard the same weasel words, can the night, he can't deny a conversation about this issue. even by the standards of this crime ministers this is a disgraceful episode. is unknown hon. member described it as a day of shame for this country. mr. speaker, he is the prime minister of hedge funds and he knows it. can he see there is a devastating conflict of interest b

let me clear that up. how much of the work that you do involve crime matters -- and i'm presuming the question that all of your crime matters are dealing with the county state attorney's office. how much of what you do is related to criminal activities? >> okay, so we have a total of 1,165 cases, autopsies. out of that, probably 110 homicides. so that is the proportion. >> okay. and in all of that work, you work with the prosecutes, correct? >> that is correct. >> i mean, these are the homicide prosecutors for that division or that office, right? >> we have a whole series of state attorneys, yes. >> okay. >> but they are in that office. >> so they called you to look at this, correct? snc >> correct. >> did they have you look at anything having to do with trayvon martin? >> no. they sent me the autopsy report, so i saw that. >> but you're just talking about george zimmerman? >> that's correct. >> if i got it right, it's your position that george zimmerman may have only received as little as three -- what te

let me summarize. if the right honorable gentleman all me is that we are not doing ,omething he decided not to do i suggest a different line of questioning. >> once again the prime minister does not know his fax -- facts. my honorable friend set out quite clearly he was a favor a plain cigarette packaging. here is the difference. moved to thefriend opposition in 2010. he used to be in favor of playing cigarette packaging. he changed his mind. cigarette packaging. he changed his mind. not answer the question that he has not answered for weeks? has he ever had a conversation with crosby about packaging? onhas never lobbied me anything. if he was a lobbying scandal, the trade union by his policy, by his candidate and his leadership. that is a scandal he should do something about. the whole of the country would have heard. >> he cannote -- deny he had a conversation with lincoln crosby about this issue. even by the standards of this prime minister, it is as disgraceful area -- as disgraceful. ownemorable --

so there are -- >> and that was significant -- let me jump in. at was significant because we know we saw in the police tape, he has said that trayvon martin said to him basically you got me, and he said he held his hands down. we know trayvon martin's hands were found under his body. does anyone disagree with larry? does anyone think that dr. bao hit it out of the park as the state's final witness? >> no. >> crickets. >> no, faith? >> he didn't hit it out of the park. obviously, he was a very necessary witness for the prosecutors because they needed to highlight several things with his testimony, where the injuries were on trayvon, the trajectory of the bullet, and also the lack of injuries on trayvon's hands, for example. so they are going to use several key points that he made in his testimony today in their closing arguments. but this witness, he's a professional. he should -- he's testified in many trials before, but he just lacked clarity and organization in a lot of things he testified about and some of the major points that the prosecutors

back after this. >>> let me get you back to sanford, florida. tell you, analysis from our legal experts is fascinating. put your prosecutor hat on for me. sunny, first to you. you hear this chief medical examiner. she's testifying specifically on the injuries of george zimmerman. you hear mark os'mara trying to debunk what she said earlier. how successful is she as a state witness here? >> i think she's okay. she's not the medical examiner that conducted the autopsy on trayvon martin. she was only asked to testify as to the extent of george zimmerman's injuries. i think everyone has agreed that his injuries were just insignificant, they weren't that significant. we're talking about two very, very small lacerations, bruises? >> why do we care? >> it's important to note whether or not he really had a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm and that would allow him to use self-defense with this type of force. >> okay. >> he shot trayvon martin. >> darren to you, everything you've heard so far here, both in the questioning from the

>> let me finish -- let me -- let me finish the thought before you disagree. the fact of the matter is that george zimmerman got out of his car against police orders. not -- >> that's not a crime. excuse me, that is not a crime. that -- >> you're -- >> that's a factor -- >> the factor -- >> i'm schismly responding -- >> no, no, no. >> you want to talk about the law or morals? >> okay, let me jump in. let me jump in. let me jump in. >> your argument -- >> let me ask you this, jane, let me ask you this jane. you mentioned you had children. if this had been one of your kids a bit older killed in these circumstances would you really have been happy that the person that did this walked away without any accountability whatsoever forfectively killing your child in cold bloold? >> piers, would i be happy? imagine the question. the question really behooves the answer is this is a tragedy there is nobody that won't say this isn't an awful, horrible tragedy and you're right, that shouldn't have happened, however, however, we have laws to abide by in this country and laws

. >> let me ask mr. looeng, perhaps you can tell the audience about the organization you lead and your experience with risk in needs assessment tools or the kind of evidence based factors that mr. gas skon is referencing. sn >> thank you, jeff, the project has in existence since 1976 and it's a non-profit organization. when we first came across this was a heavily needs base. we provide treatment and with the idea that you are going to impact the failure to appear or appearing in court and obviously recidivism. that's now jumping forward 30 or 20 years. in the last five years particularly you have heard these words in fact chief still spoke about it, evidence base. in the last decade the single biggest change in our social services has been the use now of technology and i see it sort of akin to and i read an article recently. what you are trying to do now is obviously face risk decisions now on much more empirically based situation. now the pretrial diversion project and pretrial release is really the hum

let me start with you.he democratic problems leverage the current problems of the governor to winning a seat this november? >> well, so i think ken cuccinelli has a variety of things that make him vulnerable. it's not just the bob mcdonnell scandal. he has to run from his own record. he has to run from the record of his lieutenant governor candidate who has even said even more extreme ideas. and you see it right now. he is vulnerable. he is losing in the polls. he is being outspent. and every day that all of these scandals are in the news is more time that he is not getting his own message out. >> okay. tie him to the scandal. >> time for the scandal? >> can you do that? can you tie him to the scandals of mcdonnell? can you do that? >> absolutely. well, first, it's not just about bob mcdonnell the scandal. ken cuccinelli also had undisclosed gifts and undisclosed stock investments from with the same donor. he had the same exact problem. he also in the chef who is also part of this scandal, the mansion chef

let me start tonight with this.azine for next week has anthony weiner mounted up on the empire state building tv helicopters swarming around and above as he takes pictures of the tower's pinnacle. it wouldn't be -- it would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact it's dominating democratic politics in this world. weren't we the country that taught the world that people had the brains and judgment to pick their own leaders? didn't we say, certainly churchill did that democracy is the best form of government.

let me finish. point? that he smoked marijuana? >> my point is that we should be having a discussion about crime in the black community, the fact that so many young blacks are killing each other. we're having the wrong discussion, and i believe that politically, all this stirring the pot is to take black people's minds off their real problems. off the unemployment. >> who agrees with that? >> i agree with that. >> hands up. who disagrees with that? one, two. darryl, i'll let you respond. there was the issue of the texts with trayvon about fighting and he had smoked pot that night. does that impact his mind? >> not at all. it would have made him relaxed if anything. sean, here's what it does, though. the awareness of trayvon's life helps us understand each other a little bit better. if nothing else, there was a disconnect between george zimmerman that night and what trayvon was doing. and detective sarino said it correctly. twice he asked george, did you tell him who you were? he said sir, no i didn'

. >> let me say this. if trayvon martin had been a white teenager and george zimmerman had been a black man, george zimmerman would be in jail today. >> let me ask you a question. does it matter to you, congressman rush. >> no doubt about it, no doubt about it. no doubt about it. >> does it matter to you, congressman rush, there's a majority that know that he tutored black children, took a black woman to a prom? in other words there's no animosity in this man's heart. why do you ignore that? >> there is because this man -- it came out of his mouth. >> what came out of his mouth? what? >> he stereo typed. >> what did he say. >> this is what ratio stereotype is all about. >> what did he say? >> because trayvon martin was a young black man with a hood on and he stereotyped him. he said, these guys, they always get away. >> thank you both. >> let me close with this, sean. if i could just get this piece in. >> real quick. >> what happened is a young hispanic man shot a blan man in self-defense, tried by a white

let me start with a basic question. it seems to me that the president was lowering expectations a little bit there in that part of his speech saying this is basically -- has to be at the state and local level to change the laws. people on the street saying justice for trayvon. what is -- what does justice for trayvon martin look like? >> let me just say what i've been struck with over the past week -- and i watched charles on a couple of shows and other conversations about this, there are two things going on. there's actually a case involving a specific set of facts, and there's a national explosion as people suddenly look up and are reminded that 4 1/2 years into this presidency, there are very deep, painful problems that not only have not been addressed, not even discussed. so i think you have a psychological thing going on, which is in the streets, and you have a legal case, and the president is partly saying there is -- and i think he's hinting -- there is no legal ground for the justice department to reopen this cas

cho chod dozen let me dozen let me turn to you. do you stand by your find sngs >> yes the sba stands by its findings. >> going back to you mr. castillo, what do you say about not ba saying that you did have adequate internal controls? what is your response to that? i want to give you an opportunity to respond because there are some problems here. >> yes, sir. they pointed out inaxis and we put crecks in place from a time recording perspective. >> you admit there were problems with internal controls? >> yes, sir. >> let me get to something that the charmente talked about that is extremely troubling to me. i told you in my opening statement that i live in an are where businesses struggling so i want the programs to run properly as i know the chairman does. the question is can you tell me outside of the catholic university students and faculty, tell me how many other people outside of those that ou employeed from the hub zone . >> of our ten employees not counting the college students, we have one other hub zone resident. >> so you ha

let me ask you, since you're the guy here enjoying all this, it seems to me -- >> i don't know aboutour regular party, the regular old republican party, but the right wing of your party is now saying the following. unless obama, the president of the united states agrees to no revenues at all in a new package on the budget, agrees to no paying off the national debt, and killing obama care, there will be a government shutdown and probably a default on the federal government. what kind of a statement is that by responsible office holders? >> it's basically saying, look, you know, we're not going to go down a road where we continue to spend without some idea of where the end point is. i mean, you got the tax increases at the beginning of this year, some 600 -- >> for who? who got taxed? >> everybody got taxed, chris. everybody's taxes went up at the beginning of the year. so don't sit in this little bubble and act like it didn't happen. >> i'm talking income taxes? >> income taxes, payroll taxes. everybody got a hit to their bottom line at the beginning of the year. republicans signed of

professor simon, let me ask a follow-up. i want to get an idea of what a system you are advocating would look like. let's say you have arraignment for somebody in a case alleging violence. maybe an armed robbery or sexual assault of some kind. are you comfortable with someone having a right to be released on their own recognizant under the theory that the police should do their work and make sure that person doesn't commit other offenses? and that it's not legitimate to make that consideration at the time of a bail assessment? >> i think that is my view, i think through slow steps we accumulated a system that has a ton of minor offenders and not able to accused in that way. and the right of the constitution and the rights we have made up for the mistakes made. we have to toss out the low-level crimes not just in the city but many parts of the state. and with that bandwidth of focus, we focus on the areas and a activity and crime and less on locking people up. in either case we are punishing the people ahead of their trial. af

and i would swim out to save you in your sea of broken dreams when with all your hopes are sinking let mehow you what love means ♪ let us build a bridge [speaker not understood] ♪ let us build a bridge don't you think it's time don't you think it's time let us stand together [speaker not understood] we can do anything anything anything keep believing in our hearts [speaker not understood] love can build a bridge ♪ [speaker not understood] ♪ [speaker not understood] don't you think it's time, don't you think it's time love can build a bridge [speaker not understood] ♪ ♪ yes, it's time ♪ [cheering and applauding] >> you have two men who were never afraid to be who they were, even if it meant being different, even if it meant going against the grain. and i think that oftentimes as historic figures become part of the mainstream, we forget that what's so unusual and so unique about george moscone and harvey milk is the fact that they were not afraid to go against the mainstream. and i think that's something that often gets forgotten. and one thing that i want to say, especially when it comes t

let me pick you up on this. why not even do border enforcement, which is what house republicans are talking about doing? >> there's nothing we can do to pass a law to force the president to enforce a law he doesn't like, which is why. he has proven it over and over again. we've taken him to court on the issue. we voted that on the florida congress. the president is not going to enforce the law. harry reid is not going to take up border enforcement. they want this for a political issue. this is a big boone for democrats, whether republicans are willing to go along with this or not, if we pass something they're still going to get the credit for it in the white house. the president will sign a bill. they'll continue to use this for political reasons. that's at the base of this. some republicans have been into this thinking we have to take it off the table bypassing amnesty. >> congressman israel, as you just heard from steve king, president obama, in a sense, gave republican ares a new talking point this week on th

let me play to it you. >> don't misunderstand me. not going to bring trayvon benjamin martin back to life. your verdict is not going to change the past, but it will forever define it. >> kyle, what did you see at that point? >> well, obviously, reverend al, it was a line. it was obviously designed to elicit emotion. and juror b-29, the juror from chicago, originally from chicago, with eight children, only one child over the age of 18, she wiped away a tear. i mean, it was very noticeable. she reached up and wiped the corner of her eye and the bottom of her eye twice to wipe away a tear. it definitely elicited emotion that i think john guy was trying to go for. >> all right, carl hightower, thank you so much for your time. >>> so what are the jurors discussing now, and when can we expect a verdict? lisa bloom joins the panel. and lisa, the jury is done deliberating for the night. and earlier they asked for an evidence list. what do you make of that, and what do you make of this juror with the tear? >> well, she was obviously moved. an

let me let me one will let me ask you a point.here on this network is what we're having the thing we have or another name ses. believed to be the site's bad staying there again here in the situation we're being idle or even talk about surveillance me. oh. oh oh. that was a new alert animation scripts scare me a little league. there is breaking news tonight and we are continuing to follow the breaking news leaks the alexander family cry tears of the war you and your great things rather that. we ever read or get a quart of water found alive is a story made sort of movies playing out in real life. is it possible to navigate the economy with all the details such as dixon information and media hype we'll keep you up to date by decoding the mainstream status if in your mind. the logo. ah. yesterday we called back talk or to sit around twelve quick and went straight to sleep. in this state we were up at seven even though it's a sunday when we usually up at eight and that's because of the concert they we had to make it seven i think that'

i love this historic -- >> no, no, let me answer you. let me answer you. >> go ahead. >> i'm not condoning adultery in any form. however, when people are consensual adults and keep it quiet. that's one thing. >> you're raising this to the level of adultery, by the way. >> when people have an urge to drag us all into it, when they are completely indiscreet, there's an element of reckle recklessness, there's an element of wanting to get caught, as i think michael is trying to say, that is the thing that starts to raise flags. >> this is the public part of it. >> if people are discreet enough and have enough railroads for their spouses or whatever to keep it private, that is actually a step above these people who are so com pulsive and reckless and ruin their marriages, and shove their private stuff in front of or faces literally. let me give you an example of discretion. katharine hepburn and spencer tracy. you're laughing, because you're so grown up -- >> he's so young. >> they had a quiet affair that went on for years, if not decades. th

here for him to do that. >> let me ask you about that.hought it was interesting that congresswoman was saying fo ichb the midst of the debate about border enforcement, the president could reassure republicans and put in a law and order type as secretary of i homeland security.>> do you think that's true or do you think distrust by republicans of barack obama by republicans won't care. >> believe me, we did what the j president asked us to do and should have done what the president asked us to do, and this isn't just generalized distrust. in the last two weeks, the president has weighed in major s proposals of a piece of legislation he likes, obama care. can anyone believe he won't waive aspects of the legislation he doesn't like for border en security? of rity? deportations under obama. >> wait, i have to bring this mt in, congresswoman, you want to talk about the subject in ng general. number of names have been nd mentioned as possible replacements for janet napolitano as secretary of homeland security.e are you interested in the job?t i

let me summarize, if the writer hon. gentleman's attacon me, we are not doing things we wanted to dout qstioning. the prime minister doesn't know his facts. from february of 2010, and cigarette packaging. and here is the difference, my hon. friend moved to that position in 2010, had to be in favor of cigarette packaging. and can he now answer the question, has he ever had a conversation for lincoln crosby and cigarette packaging. and never been beyond anything but if he is for lobbying scandals why doesn't he tried to effect that his policies, they even bought and paid for his leadership. they could do something about it. the whole of the country will have heard the same weasel words, can the night, he can't deny a conversation about this issue. even by the standards othis crime ministers this is a disgraceful episode. is unknown hon. member described it as a day of shame for this country. mr. speaker, he is the prime minister of hedge funds and he knows it. can he see there is a devastating conflict of interest between h

let me go to lisa bloom. i remember you saying the other night, i'm always looking for controversy here. i heard you say the only thing that matters in this case is not the box it came in, not all the racial history, the 450 years of bad history and all kinds of questions about police and our system and not the question whether this guy thought he was a cop or possible vigilanteism. what happened when these two guys met and who ended up feeling they were in danger of injury and therefore, drew the gun and used it? >> i think what i said was the legal question is at the moment that george zimmerman took the life of this teenager, was he reasonably in fear of great podly injury or death. that's the legal standard. that's such a difficult question to answer because you do have to take into account the entire condition text. here's a piece of evidence in this case. >> why do you have to take it in context? you're saying it differently this time. you've changed the way you're saying it. >> i don't think i'm saying

guess what i'm saying is that these both democracy and technology can knock your sense of agency let me answer your question name a better system that has withstood the long period of time that has given people prosperity given people peace give me the name of another. not arguing against democracy and arguing against their appearance of democracy which i think existed. in terms of democracy the greeks did not have perfect democracy had slaves for god's sake when democracy was first created while i think it's it's a very american argument but for me i think that america it is the argument well i don't want to get into an argument with you but i think it is problematic for many protests in democracies all about democracy is about sharpening two points of view and let the best argument when rather than saying i'm the king off with your head but ok let me sharpen my point george w. bush was a democratically elected president obviously as you said he had some consultations about that war but that's war was launched under a false pretext the democratic procedure that exists there in the unit

let me play to it you. >> don't misunderstand me.rdict is not going to bring trayvon benjamin martin back to life. your verdict is not going to change the past, but it will forever define it. >> kyle, what did you see at that point? >> well, obviously, reverend al, it was a line. it was obviously designed to elicit emotion. and juror b-29, the juror from chicago, originally from chicago, with eight children, only one child over the age of 18, she wiped away a tear. i mean, it was very noticeable. she reached up and wiped the corner of her eye and the bottom of her eye twice to wipe away a tear. it definitely elicited emotion that i think john guy was trying to go for. >> all right, carl hightower, thank you so much for your time. >>> so what are the jurors discussing now, and when can we expect a verdict? lisa bloom joins the panel. and lisa, the jury is done deliberating for the night. and earlier they asked for an evidence list. what do you make of that, and what do you make of this juror with the tear? >> well, she was obviously m