Friday, December 21, 2007

Emerson and Colmes

Self-proclaimed 'terrorism expert' Steve Emerson (or as Wiki describes him more accurately: an "[...] American investigative journalist specializing in national security, terrorism, and Islamic extremism" was over at Shammity and Colmes to try and pre-emptively convict the Holy Land defendants before their pending re-trial. Now I don't proclaim to know much about this case at all, apart from snippets I've caught on Fox yesterday and on a few prior occasions, the re-trial should shed more light on the alleged guilt of the defendants any time soon, so there's no real point in jumping the gun. But Emerson couldn't wait to wade in before that and clashed once again with Alan Colmes (this time co-hosting with Horn Shammity's stand-in, Mark Steyn). Any time soon now I'm expecting the volatile Emerson to completely lose his rag with Colmes, by calling him a 'self-loathing Jew' or similar ("Alan, we're doing this for a Good Cause, get with the program!"). The two clearly don't get on well.

Transcript by NewsHounds:
Then Alan Colmes stepped in. Their confrontation was something of a grudge match; their last several discussions have turned contentious. “You’re going to blame this on one juror,” Colmes asserted. “As Jonathan Turley has said, you know the famous law professor, this trial shows the government’s allegations in the first place were highly suspect and should probably never have brought them in the first place.”

Colmes correctly summarized Turley’s remarks, at least as far as they were reported in the LA Times. But Emerson dismissed them. “What are you talking about, Alan?” Emerson said derisively.

Colmes sarcastically quipped, “You want me to talk slower?”

“Maybe you shouldn’t talk,” Emerson said snidely. “Because Turley represents…”

Colmes continued, talking over the end of Emerson’s last sentence. “That the government shouldn’t have brought this case, that’s what the issue is… You get very insulting and you ought to stop doing that.”

Colmes went on to cite more of the LA Times article which included a statement from one other juror who felt the government’s case was weak.

Emerson dropped his pretense of impartiality. “They violated the law. They were providing money to Hamas! …You’re willing to defend the behavior of one juror who basically harassed, bullied, intimidated other jurors.”

Colmes cut him off. “No, Steve, I’m willing to defend the judicial system in this country. I’m willing to defend the process. And you don’t like the process when it doesn’t favor the result you want.”

“No, I’m not saying that at all,” Emerson contended. “I’m saying, let’s look at what the juror said. And the jurors, themselves, said that this one juror who sought out the limelight, he was the only one to speak (Emerson conveniently forgot about the second juror quoted in the LA Times as being critical of the government’s case), he fit in perfectly with the LA Times profile which is that it’s racial profiling. That’s absolutely not the case. It was a good case to bring (Emerson is not a lawyer) and we’ll see the re-match in April.”

Colmes said sarcastically, “Can’t wait.”

Video of the item below:

Get targeted traffic to your blog! Want more returning readers? Blogrush is 100% FREE, totally hands-free and automatically finds readers that are interested in your blog's content. See your blog traffic explode... No spam or abuse, no ads to run on your blog, just targeted traffic rushing to your blog. Less than 5 minutes to sign up (click). Or click logo to view a short presentation to see how it works. Why wait?


Post a Comment

<< Home