When the widow of the slain police officer killed by Mumia Abu-Jamal appeared on the Thursday "Today" show to promote her new book, NBC's Matt Lauer seemed to take up the cause of the convicted cop killer as he asked Maureen Faulkner mostly skeptical questions like: "Do you ever allow yourself to consider the fact that perhaps he didn't do this?"
Appearing on the December 6, "Today" show, Faulkner, along with her co-author, conservative radio talk show host Michael Smerconish, were subjected to questions about the legitimacy of Abu-Jamal's guilt by the "Today" show host. Lauer repeatedly aired claims from the Abu-Jamal defense team as he displayed new photos meant to prove Abu-Jamal's innocence, repeated charges that Smerconish was helping Faulkner for "personal gain" and even took time out to show pro-Mumia supporters in the "Today" show crowd:
LAUER: I want to show people a live shot outside our studio right now and show them that there is a fairly substantial protest right across the street from our studio. These people got up early in the morning, came from some place to express their views that this man is innocent. How do you feel, why do you think they're here, if they don't truly believe that?
The following is the set-up piece by NBC's Rehema Ellis, followed by the full interview by Lauer as it aired on the December 6, Today show:
MATT LAUER: On December 9th, 1981 a Philadelphia police officer was shot and killed while serving in the line of duty. A man named Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death. To this day he maintains his innocence. To some he is a cold-blooded killer, to others he's a political prisoner. Here's NBC's Rehema Ellis.
[On screen headline: "Murdered By Mumia, Police Widow's Fight For Justice."]
UNIDENTIFED REPORTER: Police tell us that Officer Daniel Faulkner was shot down at 13th and Locust.
REHEMA ELLIS: When Officer Daniel Faulkner, a 25-year-old newlywed was gunned down on a Philadelphia street following a traffic stop no one knew it would ignite a debate that would be heard around the world.
PROTESTOR: Free Mumia now!
PROTESTOR#2: Kill Mumia now!
ELLIS: Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther, radio journalist and taxi driver was arrested, charged and convicted of murder. For 25 years now he's been on death row for a crime, he says, he did not commit.
PROTESTORS: Free Mumia! Free Mumia! Free Mumia now!
ELLIS: He's attracted Hollywood stars and gained international fame.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It's a righteous cause! That's why you see people right here from Belgium, from France, from Germany, from South Africa, here!
ELLIS: There have been rallies and fundraisers for a man many say was framed by a racist legal system but Officer Faulkner's family has a different view.
TOM FAULKNER, BROTHER OF MURDERED POLICE OFFICER: He's no damn martyr. He assassinated my brother.
ELLIS: Over the years Abu-Jamal's advocates have tried but failed to overturn his conviction. Now supporters say there is new photographic evidence that should lead to a new trial.
ROBERT R. BRYAN, LEAD COUNSEL FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: The jury only saw one side of the coin.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you believe you will, one day, be a free man or do you believe, one day, you will be put to death?
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: I'm working for the former, not the latter.
ELLIS: In May Abu-Jamal's defense team argued he should be set free while prosecutors still insisted he should be executed. As everyone awaits a court's decision 53-year-old Mumia Abu-Jamal remains on death row and the debate over what happened that night, almost 26 years ago, continues. For Today, Rehema Ellis, NBC News, New York.
LAUER: Maureen Faulkner is the widow of slain police officer Danny Faulkner, Michael Smerconish is a conservative radio host and columnist based in Philadelphia. Their new book is called Murdered By Mumia: A Life Sentence of Loss, Pain and Injustice. Good morning to both of you.
MAUREEN FAULKNER: Good morning Matt.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH: Good morning.
LAUER: I was struck, Maureen, I was watching that piece and I'm trying to think if you could have ever imagined 26 years ago, when this first happened that, that 26 years later you'd still be in the midst of debate over this case?
FAULKNER: No, Matt, absolutely not. After Danny was murdered in 1981 and he was buried and the case was over I thought I could go on with my life and try to rebuild and have a new life. But for the past 26 years I've just been haunted by the Free Mumia movement.
LAUER: And, and in some ways it seems the debate over guilt or innocence or racism or injustice has somehow left Danny out. And, and, at times when I hear this debate I don't hear people remembering that a police officer was murdered by someone.
FAULKNER: So often they do not mention Danny's name. And that's what they need to do. I mean he was a young police officer, he was 25-years-old and he was brutally murdered by Mumia.
LAUER: I want to show people a live shot outside our studio right now and show them that there is a fairly substantial protest right across the street from our studio. These people got up early in the morning, came from some place to express their views that this man is innocent. How do you feel, why do you think they're here, if they don't truly believe that?
FAULKNER: They are trying the case in the court of public opinion and not in the court of law and that's why I think people need to read the book. It's all there. My life, the facts, what happened the night my husband was murdered is all in the book.
LAUER: Michael, Abu-Jamal's attorney since 2003 is a guy named Robert Bryan. He says that when the conviction and sentence came down in 1982 there were constitutional issues, there was racism, there was injustice, there was evidence tampering. He also says, by the way, that you're a guy who's involved in this for your own personal gain because you didn't try this case, you're not a lawyer. Why, why are you involved in this?
SMERCONISH: Well I resent that charge and obviously Mr. Bryan hasn't read the inside flap of the book. "The author's proceeds from the sale of this book are being donated to a not-for-profit," that Maureen has established for the benefit of murder victim children. This is a three-year investment.
LAUER: Maybe he's not talking about financial personal gain. Maybe he's talking about for status and, and, and attention.
SMERCONISH: There's, there's no upside. There's a tremendous drain on my time to write this but America needs to know the story of an unbelievable woman who for 26 years has fought the fight when I think most of us would've washed our hands of it and walked away.
LAUER: If, if there is something new in this case and for so many years there really hasn't been an awful lot new, there's just been heated debate but there are some photographs that have been released by supporters of Mumia and, and they were taken by a freelancer named Pedro Polokoff. They say, the supporters say, these photos show a policeman holding two guns in his bare hand, contradicting what officers trial testimony was that he had preserved, ballistics evidence. Another shows Faulkner's hat, your husband's hat on top of a car, not on the sidewalk, as in the official police photo of the crime scene. And the third shows a blood-stained sidewalk where the shooting took place but does not show any signs of marks in the concrete that might have occurred if, if your husband had been shot from above as prosecutors contended. The defense attorney says he can have a field day with these photographs if a new trial is-
SMERCONISH: But this is the outrage. For 26 years these canards have enabled the manipulation of the process. I mean it's as reliable as the fact that Christmas is on the 25th on December that they will come up with something every year. One year it was a guy who stood up and said, "I know who murdered Danny Faulkner! I did it!" And the defense lawyers thought he was preposterous. Another year it was a guy who said that he was there and that the dying words of Danny Faulkner were, "Get Maureen, get the children!" When everybody agrees he died instantly and unfortunately she never had the chance to have children with Danny. I mean it's, where does it stop?
FAULKNER: Where have these pictures been for 26 years? I mean where have they been? Why hasn't this man come forth sooner than now?
LAUER: Maureen, when you're ever, when you're alone, when you're alone with your thoughts at night, when you even see pictures of the protest like the one we have across the street, does it ever cross your mind that perhaps they're right? Do you ever allow yourself to consider the fact that perhaps he didn't do this?
FAULKNER: He murdered my husband in cold blood and there is no doubt in my mind. Absolutely no doubt. And I wrote this book, it, it was a therapy for me to get my life in black and white so people can read it. And Michael, thank you Michael. Michael has been with me for 15 years helping me and standing up and speaking out for me, 15 years.
LAUER: The emotions of this case run very high and, and I'm sure we're not gonna have an answer today, that's for sure. But Michael thank you for being here. Maureen thanks so much, it's nice to meet you.
SMERCONISH: Thank you, Matt, thank you.
FAULKNER: Thank you, Matt.
LAUER: We appreciate it. The book is called Murdered By Mumia and an excerpt can be found on our Web site at todayshow.com.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No surprise
December 6, 2007 - 17:45 ET by candanceToday is pandering to all those protesters they had to deal with yesterday.
Saying Mumia didn't shoot her husband is like saying Harry Reid didn't try to censor Rush.
Yep
December 7, 2007 - 19:58 ET by AristoclesIt is the pons asinorum of multiculturists.
http://www.whiterevo...
What next Lauer? Asking women if they enjoy rape?
December 6, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Lame CherryI do not believe I will ever get over being surprised by the asses liberals make of themselves. It would never occur to me to ask the widow of someone murdered if the murderer was really innocent, because lawyers claim otherwise.
Maybe Lauer should ponder if PAID SHILLS actually are espousing a biased opinion to save their client.
For what Lauer did today he should be fired. He is a soulless creature of the lowest order.
Honestly, I can see him someday asking someone Bill Clinton raped "if they really enjoyed it".
Sitting here in "Lauer Thought" I frankly am surprised if he didn't tell the widow how much fun she will have now sleeping around without a husband.
Thank God the things liberals come up with He has expunged from my thought process.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
LC! Yer scannin' me!
December 6, 2007 - 21:57 ET by sentforth5"Soulless creature"..you pulled that right out of my brainstem.
A note for Rat Lauer...they had a trial and the man was found guilty.
To say to that poor woman that "We'll never get an answer, that's for
sure." takes an empty, dead soul.
They won't fire him...they love him. What a bunch of sick puppies.
senthforth5 soulless
December 6, 2007 - 23:42 ET by USA4freedomsenthforth5soulless creature is the right line.This poor woman, and her dead husband. Hollywood and the Rat, should be proud..more reason not to spend money on these people.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Lauer's shame
December 6, 2007 - 18:21 ET by motherbeltThis "balance" garbage is getting beyond ridiculous.
Mumia's supporters originally asked for "equal time" on the show. I guess we should be grateful that NBC didn't allow that.
But Lauer did a pretty good job of pressing their case anyway.
He ought to be ashamed of himself.
He forgot to end the
December 6, 2007 - 18:30 ET by kgHe forgot to end the interview with "Thank you for coming in. Now if you will excuse me, I need to go outside and protest."
FAIR & BALANCED?
December 6, 2007 - 18:36 ET by danybhoyThere will never be balance in this case, not until Mumia Abu-Jamal is dead. This man should have been exicuted years ago. Justice delayed is justice denied.
As for the bleeding heart morons who support this killer-eeerr-falsly imprisoned man, it's not a shock. This is the same group that is always there to cry about police brutality, how unfair the death penalty is, & how crappy our system is. Mike Farrell, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandan, & the rest of the Hollywood elites. If these people are supporting something, I should oppose it, almost automaticly.
Mumia Abu-Jamal is a murderer, he killed a cop. I have no sympathy for murderers, & I hold those who kill 1st responders in even lower regard. I'm not sure if PA has the death penalty, or if they had it at the time of the murder, but this guy should die by lethal injection. The sooner the better, Mumia is a scumbag & the fact he's still alive should piss off anyone who cares about the real victim & real justice in this case.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Liberals and Judgmentalism
December 6, 2007 - 20:32 ET by KC MulvilleWhen Lauer asks whether Faulkner’s wife has considered the possibility that she might be wrong … or when David Gregory presses Bush whether he considers that he might be wrong … or when liberal atheists accuse believers of being blockheads because faith “blinds” one from questioning … that’s just liberal prejudice at work.
Belief is a judgment, and liberals hate judgment. The loony left wants us all to be nonjudgmental about everything, so that no one can criticize them for any of their decisions. The loony left wants the freedom to do and say whatever they want, without being criticized, and they attack any critic of being “judgmental.” That's why it's so hard for them to understand someone who believes something, even though there might be some reason to think otherwise.
Raise your hand if you know the difference between “reasonable” and absolute doubt. Sometimes you’ll see a TV courtroom drama where the lawyer challenges the witness, and eventually says something like, “But isn’t possible that you could be wrong?” Inevitably, the witness looks crestfallen and mumbles, yes, I might be wrong. The scene is always supposed to undermine the witness’ credibility. It’s crap, of course. After Kurt Godel’s Theorem, we know that even mathematics doesn’t have “mathematical certainty.”
You assemble as much information as you can, and you weigh perspectives, but then you make a decision about what you think is true. You don’t allow the slightest possibility of being wrong to prevent you from holding convictions and beliefs. It’s a juvenile tactic to claim that a conclusion can’t be accepted because there may be a remote possibility that some part of the conclusion isn’t absolutely true. That’s why courts deal in reasonable doubt.
The case against Mumia is more than reasonably decisive. As it is, I’m against the death penalty, and I don’t think he (or anyone else) should be executed. But I have no reasonable doubt that Mumia is guilty as charged, and should be sent to prison for life, without chance of parole.
Liberals hate judgment??? another wacky
December 8, 2007 - 04:07 ET by professor truthrw saying that holds the same meaning as other rw jingoism like "family values", and "God bless America"(rwers, why not God bless everone???).
"You keep using that word.
December 8, 2007 - 04:28 ET by tracheostomy"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. . ."
-Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Jingoism is propaganda, an example of a glittering
December 8, 2007 - 04:41 ET by professor truthgenerality that is vague in it's meaning. After all, "support the troops" means different things to different people. For the pro war crowd, it's a cowardly way to say,"support the mission," or in my words,"support the war crimes"! Jingoism is propaganda as a glittering generality that sounds good and is designed to stop critical thinking.
Not it's not. You're
December 8, 2007 - 05:03 ET by tracheostomyNot it's not. You're stretching the term into a most conveniently vague pejorative to use at your own subjective whim.
"Family values" is a term thrown around by both parties for example. You're arguing terms however they suit you. This indicates you don't want a real dialogue about the issues and you just want to troll.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Thus if a particular term
December 8, 2007 - 05:11 ET by tracheostomyThus, if a particular term or turn of phrase means different things to different people, you cannot fairly beat people over the head with your pet definitions until you can agree with your adversary in a fair debate.
Otherwise you're being intellectually dishonest and behaving like quite the non-objective and truly non-critical thinker.
Does "support the troops" mean the rank privates only? If you scream "war crimes" then shouldn't all those involved be held acountable, or is this Nuremberg (Ve were just doing our jobs, mein herr)?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Here, go vandalize this page. . .
December 8, 2007 - 05:18 ET by tracheostomywith your personal pet definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism
Note that those who sing the song are only supporting a particular foreign policy. Labeling it Jingoism is a half-assed attempt to knock it without backing yourself up with any facts as to WHY you don't agree with it.
Again, you're nothing but an empty suit waving your arms and preaching.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
OK, lets go
December 8, 2007 - 05:53 ET by KC MulvilleYou claim that my argument is just right wing propaganda. (I don't know where you got the "jingoism" label from, but it's out of context here. Let's just forget it, and work with propaganda.) I argue that liberals are hostile to beliefs and convictions wherever there may be evidence to the contrary. For you to dispute that, you'd have to argue that liberals respect judgments made when the evidence is ambiguous.
Here are two cases where liberals accuse conservatives of being judgmental. If what I say is mere right wing propaganda, you have to show that liberals respected Faulkner's widow's certainty of Mumia's guilt. (In which case, Lauer's question, and the Hollywood crowd's support for Mumia, are kind of a problem.) You also have to hold that liberals "respect" President Bush's Iran policy, even if they don't agree with it. (In which case, you'll have to explain the spleen-busting reaction from the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, and various other liberal sites.)
It's not so much that
December 8, 2007 - 19:56 ET by fitzfongIt's not so much that liberals hate judgment, it's that they lack judgment. God Bless America.
If that woman were my mother
December 8, 2007 - 04:02 ET by KeithIf that woman were my mother or sister, I'd bust Lauer's punk liberal mouth wide open. I can see the headlines now, "Matt Lauer gets knocked the F- OUT on the today show"!
}}---> Lauer's angle
December 8, 2007 - 06:12 ET by Cool ArrowIMHO Lauer and his MSM buddies figured it had been a few years since Hurricane Carter and they wanted to show their patronizing condescending benevolence toward a Black convict to prove they support The Dream of Martin Luther King.
Lauer et al think nothing of insulting widows with silly questions prefaced with the ever absolving: "What do you say to those who say . . ."
FAULKNER: They are trying
December 6, 2007 - 18:19 ET by rimskyFAULKNER: They are trying the case in the court of public opinion and not in the court of law..
For me, after reading this post, Faulkner's words above go right to the core of this case. And it makes me sick. God help me I loathe the people that perpetuate this kind of, long, expensive (who pays these lawyers? tell me that), and illegitimate (there was a conviction!) drain on our system of law and order.
Zap Mumia NOW
December 6, 2007 - 18:20 ET by NoMoreClintonsThis liberal asshat Lauer is nothing but puke. To subject Maureen Faulkner to that type of insidious questioning is beyond despicable. I have been following this Mumia circus for almost 15 years and this scum bag should have been zapped long ago. There is no question that he is the killer. The Move crowd in Philly - remember them, the "back to nature" movement who all had the last name of "Africa" and who were bombed out of their house over 20 years ago resulting in the burning down of an entire block - has tried to make a celebrity out of this murderer because he killed a white cop. Please do the world a favor, Pennsylvania, and do to this piece of human garbage what he did to Officer Faulkner 26 years ago.
I heard Mrs. Faulkner on
December 6, 2007 - 20:29 ET by msh1973I heard Mrs. Faulkner on Hannity's show this evening. There are so many things about this murder that is beyond sad. Mrs. Faulkner related that her parents and his mother are now gone, but Mumia lives on...on our dime. He is famous around the world, he even has a radio show (how is that happening?)
I think I know...
December 6, 2007 - 22:03 ET by sentforth5satan owns the airwaves!
And
December 6, 2007 - 22:06 ET by sentforth5I think that's why Matt still has a job!
LAUER: I want to show
December 6, 2007 - 18:29 ET by fitzfongLAUER: I want to show people a live shot outside our studio right now and show them that there is a fairly substantial protest right across the street from our studio. These people got up early in the morning, came from some place to express their views that this man is innocent.
Yes, I'm sure they got early wake up calls from their suites at the Plaza or the Waldorf. Abu-Jimal has been the flavor of the month with these hand-wringing socialists for 26 years (I know, that's an awfully long time to be flavor of the month). The arrogance of this riff-raff to lecture Maureen Faulkner is bottomless. Slick Willy pardoned Marc Rich and considered pardoning Jonathan Pollard and Leonard Peltier...yet he didn't give Abu-Jimal a second thought. Shouldn't that tell you something? As for Matt Lauer, he's simply a glorified production assistant who should stick to fetching Meredith's Soy Wheatgrass Machiatos and debasing himself sexually with corporate brass.
That transcript of Lauer is
December 6, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Jack BauerThat transcript of Lauer is simply disgusting. No shame. Smerconish should have decked the impudent jerk. Live on air.
Remind me, did Lauer ever let it cross his mind that the three Duke Lacrosse team boys "didn't do it." Until it was shoved so far down his throat, even scum like him had to believe it.
Mr. Lauer..Meet Mr Huckabee
December 6, 2007 - 18:31 ET by PamAt this very moment we are in the midst of the Huckabee/Wayne DuMond parole scandal. Huckabee thought the same thing as Matt..until the raping and murdering Carol Shields. Was the parole political in nature? Was it Clinton's politics or Huckabee's? Did DuMond get a fair trial? Those questions all came up..He was released and a woman is dead.
The second point that I find disturbing is this:
And
Robert Bryan becomes the attorney 21 years after the verdict, yet Lauer has the nerve to question another man's reasons for working with the widow of a police officer that was killed in the line of duty? Let me guess, Bryan has absolutely nothing to gain from this?!?!?
By the way, what are the
December 6, 2007 - 18:45 ET by fitzfongBy the way, what are the odds that NBC put up this angry mob of "protestors" at the Intercontinental and bussed them in? I suppose that's not a very long bus ride...but you get my point.
Much as that seems
December 6, 2007 - 20:22 ET by motherbeltMuch as that seems possible, I read days ago that they were going to be there. (it was on Michelle Malkin's site). They were actually demanding to have someone on the show to present "their side" as "balance." (Talk about "balance" taken to the extreme.) Failing that, they intended to "storm the streets of Rockefeller Center."
The story I read had an update that said someone from NBC was "talking" to them. I can't believe they would actually even consider the demand, let alone negotiate with them over it.
I guess we can be grateful they didn't let them on the show, but Lauer carried water for them; got their point made.
What he did was despicable.
Storming Rockefeller Center
December 6, 2007 - 22:36 ET by fitzfongStorming Rockefeller Center from Westport, Southampton and Bel Air, I'm sure.
I'll tell you where they
December 7, 2007 - 01:12 ET by ConservativeRexI'll tell you where they won't be storming the streets any time soon, and that's my hometown, Pasadena Tx. I couldn't be more proud of 'em there.
Maybe we need to export my friends from that neighborhood to follow those Muima protesters around the country. There would be a different ending if they did. We don't stand for that kind of crap, I'll let you know.
Stinkerdina where the air
December 7, 2007 - 02:55 ET by Dan The Man 2Stinkerdina where the air is greener, and it smells of sulphide and rotten eggs also.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Skul
December 6, 2007 - 18:59 ET by SkulI would rather have seen Mrs. Faulkner reach over and slap the idiot for that insult.
LAUER: The emotions of this
December 6, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Bighead227LAUER: The emotions of this case run very high and, and I'm sure we're not gonna have an answer today, that's for sure.
Actually Matt, we have had an answer for quite some time. GUILTY. Remember what that means? So Matt Lauer doesn't think he killed Officer Faulkner. What a shock.
It's not that Lauer doesn't
December 6, 2007 - 19:14 ET by fitzfongIt's not that Lauer doesn't know that Abu-Jimal is guilty, it's that he doesn't care.
My theory is
December 6, 2007 - 19:33 ET by candanceDouble jeopardy works both ways.
When a jury decides a man is innocent, we have to accept it and move on.
When a jury decides a man is guilty (and guilty enough to qualify for death row), barring some kind of miracle DNA evidence we ought to accept the verdict and assume the court did its job.
This business of persuading the public to ignore a court decision undermines the very point of trial by jury...especially in a case like this where Mumia's guilt was obvious. We can't have a society where jury verdicts aren't good enough so we try everyone on TV.
Not that I would. but
December 6, 2007 - 22:21 ET by sentforth5if I'm ever put before a jury, I hope it's T. V.!
Not guilty!
seriously though
December 6, 2007 - 23:15 ET by candanceThink about this for a minute:
you're sitting on a jury listening to a case where a thug shot a policeman in cold blood.
after seeing the evidence, you agree his guilt is obvious. you vote unanimously to send him to death row.
a TV reporter gets up on national television and says America will never know if he's guilty or not.
I know the old saying goes
December 6, 2007 - 20:37 ET by Gary P JacksonI know the old saying goes "we'd rather set a thousand guilty men free, rather than send one innocent man to jail", but why is this guy still alive? Why in the world does someone on death row have just as much of a chance of dying of old age as the needle?
Heard Maureen Faulkner on Sean Hannity's show today. She has a very compelling story. Not the least of which is the fact good old Mumia was taken to the same hospital as her husband, and shouted that he "killed the MF'er and was proud of it"! Actions do have consequences! Let him profess his pride as they hook him up with the I.V.!
Why don't we have the same system that was used to execute Saddam? Maybe 30 days is a little quick, but shouldn't one be able to prove their point within' a year or two?
Mumia is out there selling books, and according to Hannity does a radio show! What's wrong with this picture!
I think the death penalty aught to apply in most murders, but if not, it darned sure aught to apply to a cop killer. Not only for the obvious reason, but if a guy isn't afraid of a cop, with a gun, what is to protect the rest of society from him, as he obviously has no fear!
When was the last time
December 6, 2007 - 21:36 ET by JerryWhen was the last time Matty brought someone on to "promote" a book and then spent the whole time trying to discredit the book? Granted, it is their standard protocol for conservative authors, but this is not a political issue. Absolutely ridiculous!
"...there were constitutional issues, there was racism, there was injustice, there was evidence tampering."
OJ's lawyers said the same thing. And now a murderer roams the golf courses looking for the "real" killer.
"...These people got up early in the morning, came from some place to express their views that this man is innocent."
I wonder how many were NBC employees and executives?
"He also says, by the way, that you're a guy who's involved in this for your own personal gain..."
And Matt, you're doing this stint on NBC all for charity? Al Gore's making millions... I don't hear you questioning his motives.
"Do you ever allow yourself to consider the fact that perhaps he didn't do this?"
Would you EVER think to ask one of the "protestors" if they thought there was a chance he DID do it????
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Hmmmm. Pedro Polokoff..
December 6, 2007 - 21:57 ET by JerryHmmmm. Pedro Polokoff.. mysterious photographer who presents photographic evidence 26 years after the fact.... I just found something interesting about him on the internet. Apparently he is a photographer for "Passional" magazine (kinky.. homosexual.. perverted.. etc), not that it discredits his evidence or anything. Plus, there may be another photographer named Pedro Polokoff. I don't know how to insert links, but here is the address:
http://www.passional...
Look for his name in the table of contents, under Photographers.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Good luck w/ that photo "evidence" Mummy Abu
December 7, 2007 - 02:52 ET by mastersofdeceitSo now it's photo evidence? Have at it. It will probably turn out like the dna "evidence" that was going to exonerate kevin cooper. I heard 2 days ago some Cooper dna results came back that confirmed him again. I've been looking for a link, but I did a search and all that comes back is old democracynow and socialistworkersunion links!
lauer-"why do you think they're here" Um cause they're loons who always take up "causes". C'mon matt there's always a "cause" don't ya know! Nice hard hitting stuff ya got there matt.
Ps-You'll notice the "free mummy" people were involved with coopers cause. I would say mmm not looking too good for mummy abu.
I don't get the left...
December 7, 2007 - 05:04 ET by sarcasmoThey obsessively focus on a very shaky case regarding Mumia, seemingly enthralled by his politically-correct name-change to he exclusion of any facts. Then they see a slam-dunk case with with much more sympathetic facts involving Cory Maye, and they decide to totally-ignore it. Why? Must libertarian bloggers face this singlehanded, just because Radley Balko was the first to notice this guy's injustice???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
My heart goes out to Maureen...
December 7, 2007 - 08:36 ET by deedledeewe in the Philadelphia area have seen what she has to put up with over the years. Matt Laurer is a sickening revelation here...he knows nothing about the case and the far left loonies who have taken up that murderer's case. God bless Maureen as she fights the good fight for justice for her husband.