IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

PoliticsNation, Monday, July 8th, 2013

Read the transcript from the Monday show

July 8, 2013
Guests: Faith Jenkins; Ken Padowitz; Lisa Bloom, Billy Martin, Marcia
Clark, Teri Huyck, Joan Walsh

REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Tonight`s lead, Trayvon Martin`s
father takes the stand. Late today, Trayvon Martin`s father Tracy Martin
testified in the second-degree murder trial of the man who shot and killed
his son. George Zimmerman, his testimony came after five of Mr.
Zimmerman`s friends took the stand.

Trayvon Martin`s father answered questions about a key piece of
evidence, the 911 call that captured someone screaming in the background.
The defense argues Trayvon Martin initially told police that it was not his
son`s voice on that recording, and how that testimony began today was
around that issue.


TRACY MARTIN, TRAYVON MARTIN`S FATHER: After he played the tape, he
basically just said do you recognize the voice?

MARK O`MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And what was your response?

MARTIN: My response was simply I didn`t tell him that -- I didn`t
tell them no, that wasn`t Trayvon. I kind of -- I think the chairs had
wheels on them, and I kind of pushed away from the -- away from the table
and just kind of shook my head and said I can`t tell.

O`MARA: So your words were I can`t tell?

MARTIN: Something to that effect. But I never said no, that wasn`t
my son`s voice. After listening to the tape for maybe 20 times, I said it
was -- I knew that it was Trayvon`s voice. I didn`t direct that towards
any family members.


SHARPTON: But Mr. Martin`s appearance also gave prosecutors a chance
to let him share with the jury what it is like to lose your son.


BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, STATE PROSECUTOR: Mr. Martin, even at this time,
is it hard for you to believe that your son is not longer living?

MARTIN: It`s very difficult to believe that Trayvon`s not living. As
I said over and over, that was my best friend in life. And to have him
gone is tragic.

DE LA RIONDA: You listened to the recording, and as you stated,
described the jury, you pulled your chair back in disbelief that you were
actually listening to voices for help and also more importantly also a

MARTIN: Correct.

DE LA RIONDA: You realize that was the shot.

MARTIN: That killed my son, yes.

DE LA RIONDA: Can you describe for the jury what was going through
your mind when you were listening to that?

MARTIN: Basically, what I was listening to, I was listening to my
son`s last cry for help. I was listening to his life being taken. And I
was coming -- trying to me to grips that Trayvon was here no more. It was
just tough.

DE LA RIONDA: Did you really know what to do at this point?

MARTIN: No. I was -- my world was from that point until today, my
world has just been turned upside down.

DE LA RIONDA: You were playing that recording over and over. You
were still dealing with this? His death?


DE LA RIONDA: Now, this was back -- this was, it was sometime in
March. It was later. It wasn`t like days later, you are still having to
deal with his death?

MARTIN: Correct.

DE LA RIONDA: OK. And you played it, and you said that you -- did
you actually write down one, two, three, four, five or you estimated you
played it 20 times?

MARTIN: I`m estimating that I played it maybe 20 times.

DE LA RIONDA: And you played it over and over. Why? Were you trying
to deal with this? Why were you doing this?

MARTIN: It wasn`t as much as I was trying to deal with it. I was
just trying to figure out the night of February 26th, 2012, why did the
defendant get out of his vehicle and chase my son.


SHARPTON: Emotional testimony from Trayvon Martin`s father. How will
this affect the jury?

Joining me now is former prosecutor Faith Jenkins, MSNBC legal analyst
Lisa Bloom, and the defense attorney Ken Padowitz.

I want to hear from each of you on the impact of Trayvon Martin`s
father`s testimony. Faith, let`s start with you.

very compelling and very moving, and very believable in terms of how he
reacted the first time he heard this tape where Trayvon is essentially
killed right before his very ears. He listens to this. So you can
understand he had the reaction that he did.

The problem for me today was I would have liked to have seen the
prosecutors call Mr. Martin in their case in chief instead of allowing the
defense call him as a defense witness after having two police officer
testify and say essentially, we -- let Mr. Martin listen to this tape, and
he said no, it wasn`t Trayvon`s voice.

So then it pits Tracy Martin against the police officers. And there
is this question of who do you believe? That was my problem with the state
allowing Mr. Martin to be called as a defense witness today.

SHARPTON: Now Lisa, is it arguable that the prosecution let the
defense call Tracy Martin because they knew the defense cannot go but so
far in impeaching their own witness?

LISA BLOOM, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: You know, that`s possible. The
prosecution may not have called him because his testimony is mixed. I
think the defense made a big blunder today calling this witness. On a
human level, it just looks mean-spirited to call this innocent, grieving
father to the stand and make him relive this. And on a legal strategy
level, he did not help them. Just before him, they had two police
witnesses who said when he was asked, is it Trayvon Martin on the 911 call,
that he had said no. Why didn`t the defense just leave it at that? By
calling him, it was over kill and it allowed him to explain and to tug at
all of our heartstrings. I mean, what heartbreak to have to watch this man
on the stand.

SHARPTON: Ken, was it a mistake in your opinion that day the defense
called Tracy Martin, or was it a mistake that the prosecution let the
defense call him and they now called him themselves during the
prosecution`s case?

KEN PADOWITZ, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Blunder is being very nice to the
defense. It`s a much worse than a blunder. It was a major misstep. I
mean, they shot themselves in the foot. I think it was brilliant on the
part of the strategy from the prosecution not to call the father, and the
defense fell right into the trap by calling him. They didn`t need to do
this, the defense. They were doing very nicely today. They put on a
number of witnesses. There was a nice flow. And then they bring the jury
the father of the victim to remind and refocus the jury back on the
horrible tragedy that this man`s son had been killed. I mean, it was a
terrible mistake by the defense, and it really drew the attention back to
the victim.

And I think that the father sounded believable. His explanation was
believable. And you could feel for him in your heart. And I just think it
was a major mistake by the defense. And good that the prosecution didn`t
call dad on their side of the case.

SHARPTON: So the mistake clearly that you and Lisa and Faith are
raising is that you`re calling a grieving father and asking him about a
tape where he is literally listening to his son`s last words, if in fact
that`s Trayvon, and listening -- and this is not disputed by anyone, to the
gunship blast that took his son`s life. And you call him to the stand to
relive that.

Let me ask you, this Faith. We`ve heard from the prosecution and from
the defense now who was screaming on the tape. Let me give you some of
both. And I want all of you to tell me how does this play out when the
jury is hearing claims from both sides with witnesses for both sides.
Listen to this.


O`MARA: Do you have an opinion as to whose voice that is in the


O`MARA: And whose voice is that?

BENJAMIN: George Zimmerman`s voice.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My immediate reaction was that`s George`s voice.

O`MARA: The cries for help, are you able to say whose voice that is,
or voices that is?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trayvon. It sounded like Trayvon`s.

O`MARA: Do you know whose voice that was screaming in the background?


O`MARA: And whose voice was that?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma`am, that screaming or yelling, do you recognize


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And who do you recognize that to be, ma`am?

FULTON: Trayvon Benjamin Martin.


SHARPTON: Now, you have the mother of Trayvon Martin saying it was
Trayvon. The mother of George Zimmerman saying it was George Zimmerman.
You have friends saying it was George. You have others saying it is
Trayvon. What does the jury do with this? And if it is a wash, if one
cancels out the other, what is the legal implications of this given the
charges if any, Faith?

JENKINS: I don`t think one cancels out the other. I think the jury
is going to decide what kind of weight they`re going to give to these
witnesses` testimony. These are friends of George Zimmerman. Two of the
witnesses wrote a book and are selling that book about George Zimmerman`s
story. Other witnesses know him from different areas` work and police
figures and military.

So, these are all his friends. And you can tell today, they did not
want to say anything bad about George Zimmerman, even during cross-
examination. So, there is going to be an issue of bias there.

But here`s what the defense was able to so. Using under the guise
these are fact witnesses, they were able to bring in bits and pieces of
character evidence, so to speak. One witness mentioned I know that George
through their kids. Another witness mention head is trained on how to use
a firearm responsibly. Another witness who is a former combat veteran said
I taught him how to tie a Windsor knot.

So, these are all bits and pieces of information these witnesses are
able to get out in front of this jury about George Zimmerman. And it`s as
if the defense is saying we don`t want you to acquit based on the law, we
want you to acquit him because you like him.

SHARPTON: All right, Lisa, I`m going get to in a little while about
the gun and training of firearms. But about these conflicting witnesses on
whose voice it is, how important it is, and what does the jury do with it
in your opinion?

BLOOM: Look, it is an important piece of evidence. I think the jury
is going to want to know who was screaming. They may not be able to answer
that question. But in addition to all of these witnesses, some of whom are
clearly engaging in wishful inking, because they can`t all be right. Only
one person is screaming for help on that call.

We can also apply logic. The logic that is screaming stops when the
gun goes off. That would tend to support that it is Trayvon Martin. If it
is George Zimmerman, his argument is that well, I stopped screaming because
the threat was no longer there. Yet he say, he didn`t think Trayvon Martin
was dead after the shot. That he continued to jump on top of him, spread
his arms out because the threat was still going on. George Zimmerman said
to the police immediately afterwards, I was calling out for help and no one
helped me. John Good said George Zimmerman was screaming for help.

So, we can put all of these together, it still adds up to a confuse
situation. I think the jury probably just sets this evidence aside.

SHARPTON: Ken, I`m going to go to break. But let me get you in on
this. What is the weight of this in terms of if the jury decides one way
or another or can`t decide who is screaming?

PADOWITZ: Well, I think that Lisa is correct. They`re going to have
a difficult time in making a determination as to who is screaming. And of
course, the defense wants this to be a reasonable doubt in the jurors`
minds that can lead to an acquittal.

But obviously, there is a lot of information from these witnesses that
the jury can weigh and make a decision on what import, how much weight they
want to give that evidence, and how it connects into everything else in the

But on the bottom line is yes, they`re going to be -- there is going
to be some confusion there, and some debate back in that jury room as to
who was actually doing the screaming. It`s not a minor point that the
screaming stopped when the shot rang out and that really goes to
corroborate the prosecution`s argument that the screaming is coming from
Trayvon Martin.

SHARPTON: I want my legal panel to stay with me there is a lot more
to talk about.

Coming up, it`s key to George Zimmerman`s self-defense claim. He says
Trayvon Martin reached for his gun.


reached -- like I felt his arm going down to my side. And I grabbed it,
and I just grabbed my fire arm and I shot.


SHARPTON: New testimony is raising questions about that account.

And remember, friend or foe, I want to know. Send me your e-mails.
"Reply Al" is coming. Stay with us.


SHARPTON: Have you joined the "Politics Nation" conversation on
facebook yet? A lot of the "Politics Nation" facebook friends are talking
about the George Zimmerman trial. We would like to hear your comments.
Please head over to facebook and search "Politics Nation" and like us to
join the conversation that keeps going long aft the show ends.


SHARPTON: We`re back with a key question from this trial. Did
Trayvon Martin really see George Zimmerman`s gun? And did he really try to
grab it? It`s at the heart of the self-defense claim, and it was a key
issue today at the trial. The prosecution asked a friend of George
Zimmerman, an air Marshall, who has experience with guns about the type of
holster that George Zimmerman used.


DE LA RIONDA: He never conferred with you as the type of holster to
get, correct?


DE LA RIONDA: Right. I mean, the holster he got, he got on his own,


DE LA RIONDA: And did he ever show to it you once he got it?


DE LA RIONDA: That it was an internal holster.


DE LA RIONDA: And internal means you can hide it inside your
waistband versus an external which is what the police would have if they`re
in uniform, et cetera.


DE LA RIONDA: That`s the difference?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is correct.

DE LA RIONDA: OK. So it would be hard to see, in other words?
Internally, people would be having a hard time seeing it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even without a jacket, it would be difficult to

DE LA RIONDA: OK. And if it was dark, it would be even harder to




SHARPTON: And internal holster worn inside the pants. It would be
difficult to see, especially in the dark. In fact, this friend told Mr.
Zimmerman`s lawyer that this kind of holster is specifically designed to be
hard to see.


O`MARA: The internal holster has the gun, if my fingers are the gun -
- if I might approach the witness for a moment.


O`MARA: The internal holster holds the gun in here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would think, yes.

O`MARA: Hidden from view, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s designed, correct.

O`MARA: In effect, concealed?


O`MARA: The purpose of a concealed weapons permit is to allow you to
do what?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is to make sure no one can see it.


SHARPTON: The entire purpose of this kind of holster is to make sure
no one can see it. Yet that`s exactly what Mr. Zimmerman says happened.
He says Trayvon Martin saw the gun that night and then reached for it,
justifying Mr. Zimmerman`s use of deadly force in self-defense.


ZIMMERMAN: I had my firearm on my right side hip. My jacket moved
up, and he saw it. I feel like he saw it. He looked at it. He said
you`re going to die tonight (bleep). And he reached for it, but he reached
like I felt his arm going down to my side. And I grabbed it, and I just
grabbed my firearm and shot him.


SHARPTON: He saw it. I feel like he saw it. Even then George
Zimmerman seems to show some hesitation about whether Trayvon Martin
actually saw his gun. If Trayvon Martin didn`t see it, then the jury might
wonder if he actually reached for it.

Here with me again are Faith Jenkins, Lisa Bloom and Ken Padowitz.

Lisa, you first brought this issue to our attention. How important is
this in the trial?

BLOOM: Yes, I`ve been looking at this all weekend. And let`s start
with the internal holster. It`s worn inside the pants, inside the
waistband, and in the back of the pants. And Zimmerman would have had a
shirt and a jacket over it. Now, here is a picture of George Zimmerman
from the police reenactment where he shows where the holster was.

Again, on his back, above his buttocks. Now that`s important because
he says at the very end he is down on his back, that Trayvon Martin`s knees
are at his elbows. How on earth, then, did Trayvon Martin see the gun,
which I might add is in a black holster. The gun itself is black. It`s a
very dark night and raining, according to all of the witnesses. Unless
Trayvon Martin had x-vision, the story doesn`t really make a lot of sense.

SHARPTON: Now, Ken, you`ve done 35 murder trials in Florida. How
important is this if in fact -- and Lisa showed -- had us showed the photo
of where Zimmerman had his hands showing where he had his holster. On a
dark night with an inside holster, how it is physically possible to say
that Martin would have seen the gun? And what does this do to the self-
defense claim, if in fact Martin did not see the gun as Zimmerman says he
thinks he may have seen it?

PADOWITZ: Well, this is where we start to see the credibility
lemmings leaping off the cliff. Because again, the prosecution is trying
to knock out the legs of the credibility of George Zimmerman. And, again,
this is really very observant by Lisa to point this out. This really shows
and strains the credibility of George Zimmerman when he is saying that
Trayvon is reaching for this gun when the gun is clearly hidden. You have
to have a concealed weapons permit only for concealed weapons. It`s dark,
and then this specific type of holster, which places it behind or to the
rear of Mr. Zimmerman against strains the credibility that Trayvon Martin
saw this gun, was reaching for the gun. There is no DNA evidence on the
gun showing that Trayvon touched it. And if that`s called into question,
then everything that George Zimmerman says that occurs, that Mr. Trayvon
Martin says you`re going to die tonight, all those things now get called
into question. We start to maybe find real credibility problems, a maybe
we can`t believe George Zimmerman. And that`s what the jury has to be
thinking when they go back and start deliberating the specific statements
of George Zimmerman and how they just don`t add up.

SHARPTON: Now, Faith, when you look at the fact that according to the
photos, Zimmerman in his police walk-through indicated the gun was down his
back. But today his own attorney, attorney O`Mara indicated the gun was
down his front. Now, could this potentially be confusing or misleading to
the jury?

BLOOM: Well, they`re going to look at George Zimmerman`s statements
and his entire story, as I said before, with a certain level of scrutiny.
And here, if you want to claim justification for killing someone, here is
what you say.

They were reaching for my gun and told me you`re going to die tonight.
It`s as if it`s a perfect justification. That`s what I you say. A
textbook scenario. In order to believe that, however, you have to believe
that Trayvon Martin, walking home, knowing that a 12-year-old is waiting
for him and he has skittles for that 12-year-old, decides at that moment he
is literally not just going to beat George Zimmerman up, but murder him and
tells him you are going to die tonight. That is an incredible story in and
of itself.

SHARPTON: Now, Lisa, we had a friend of Zimmerman testify that in
fact that Zimmerman had told him that Trayvon Martin actually grabbed his

BLOOM: That`s right.

SHARPTON: Listen to. This.


DE LA RIONDA: He told you that he, the defendant, managed to break
the grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear side of the
hammer, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whether it was the gun or the leather casing or
just reaching down there and grabbing something.


SHARPTON: But Lisa, the DNA experts testified there is no evidence of
any fingerprints or any DNA or anything like that on Trayvon Martin that it
would have established that he grabbed the gun.

BLOOM: That`s right.

SHARPTON: And there is contradictions on grabbing, seeing. I mean,
we`re all over the place on this.

BLOOM: Right. I mean, my view is it would have been next to
impossible for Trayvon Martin to even have seen it, given the conditions,
given where Zimmerman was wearing it, inside his pants, et cetera. But if
Trayvon was reaching for the gun right-handed, as he is, as he was, he
would have had to reach around and behind in a very awkward manner. It
just doesn`t make a lot of sense. And by the way, the grip of the gun
would extend in the holster towards the small of Zimmerman`s back, being
almost completely directly behind him. I mean the story just really
doesn`t add up when you put all the physical evidence together.

SHARPTON: Now, Ken, also adding to that, if in fact the gun was in a
hidden holster, a holster that could not been and was in his back or even
his side, for him to have been able to go to his back or his side to
unleash his holster, get the gun and be able to discharge the gun, isn`t
that a whole lot to do if you`re being pummeled and your head being smashed
into the concrete?

PADOWITZ: Yes. Common sense dictates that this doesn`t make sense,
the story from George Zimmerman. And one of the great things about our
jury system, that six jurors sitting there get to use their life experience
and common sense. And they`re going to apply that common sense here and
they`re going to realize it doesn`t make sense, that a right hand Trayvon
Martin reaching for a gun on the left side back and behind in the dark, the
whole thing doesn`t add up there. There is a credibility problem. And the
evidence doesn`t support Zimmerman`s story about it. So, it`s a major
problem. And the prosecution is going to make a lot of use out of this.
And, again, go for the jugular of credibility of Mr. Zimmerman, that he is
not credible. You can`t believe this whole story. And if you can`t
believe his story, then you have to come back with a verdict that speaks
the truth. Justice in this case demands a verdict of guilty.

SHARPTON: Now, I guess we go back to the prosecutor`s opening
statement of saying he was going to expose a web of lies. And I guess
that`s their strategy to try to show a lot of lies here. And the defense
said he was viciously beaten. I guess we`ll have to see if they can
establish that in their case.

Ken, Faith, Lisa, the trial continues, and we will continue covering
it with you. Thank you all for your time tonight.

JENKINS: Thank you.

BLOOM: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Coming up, testimony from the former police chief who
claimed there were no grounds to arrest George Zimmerman. My response

Plus, beware of zombie voters. For months Republicans have been
investigating reports of zombies at the polls. But did they actually find
any? That`s next.


SHARPTON: Republicans had a lot of reasons to worry in the 2012
election, especially because of their candidate. But here is what they
were actually scared about.

That`s right, zombies, especially in South Carolina. Starting last
January, the state`s attorney general and governor pushed a story that
hundreds of dead people were voting. And FOX News made sure this story
wouldn`t die.


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We know for a fact that there are deceased people
whose identities are being used in the elections in South Carolina. We
found out that there were over 900 people who died and then subsequently

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Without voter ID, I mean, let`s be clear. I
don`t want dead people voting in the state of South Carolina.


SHARPTON: Governor Haley doesn`t want dead people voting in the state
of South Carolina. Well good news, governor. They weren`t. South
Carolina`s election commission looked into hundreds of claims of dead
voters last year and didn`t find any. But the attorney general wanted the
state police to get involved too. And after 18 months, the state police
have closed their case.

Here is a news flash. They didn`t find any fraud either. The
Columbia Free Times obtained the state police 500 page report on the case
which found nothing nefarious. So no fraud was going on, but republican
officials used this story to push a harmful voter ID law? It`s not hard to
tell who is brain dead on this one. Did these guys think we would let
their bogus zombie theory live? Nice try, but we got you.


SHARPTON: In the George Zimmerman trial, the defense today got its
first full day to make its case and try to counter prosecution.
Prosecutors rested Friday after nine days of testimony in which they called
38 witnesses and introduced over 200 pieces of evidence. A key part of the
prosecutor`s task was to prove a claim they made back at the beginning in
opening statements.


JOHN GUY, PROSECUTOR: You will learn that that`s when he began to
spend that tangled web of lies.


SHARPTON: A tangled web of lies. Has the prosecution proved that
web? And what will the defense do to counter it?

Joining me now, former prosecutor Marcia Clark and criminal defense
Attorney Billy Martin. Hello to both of you.



SHARPTON: Billy, big picture moving forward. How did the prosecution
do, and what do the defense attorneys have to respond to?

MARTIN: Well, the prosecution put in a lot of evidence, Reverend, but
I think that they opened the door for defense council to really go at and
try to poke holes in their case. And they did so. I think the defense has
done a very good job. Now, I`m not in the courtroom and I can`t see the
reaction of the jury. But by putting on a detective to talk about the
story or the statement that Mr. Zimmerman made, it allowed Zimmerman`s
story to come out in the prosecution`s case. It brought Zimmerman into the
prosecution`s case.

On the web of lies they`re trying to show that he lacks credibility.
But there is a risk whenever you try that tactic. And that risk is that
you keep allowing the defendant to put his case in during the prosecution`s
case. So while they have put in a lot of evidence, they`ve also allowed
Zimmerman to attack and take away from some of the strength of their case
and to start proving his case. I think they may have -- they`ve met their
burden as the judge found, but I think they left themselves vulnerable to
attacks that that was a rookie mistake to put in the testimony of Zimmerman
through both his best friend, who really elaborated, and through a

And, Reverend, I don`t know who, what first year or second year lawyer
would ever allow a detective to render an opinion whether or not he was
credible and they believed the story. The prosecution made some mistakes,
and I think the defense is taking advantage of them.

SHARPTON: Marcia, you have been a noted prosecutor. The prosecutor
said web of lies. Are the web of lies statement in their opening are their
strategy? And have they raised enough inconsistencies that would in many
ways establish that to a jury and make them discount some of what they have
heard Mr. Zimmerman say?

CLARK: I think they have, Reverend. Here is the thing. It`s a
subtle case the prosecution has to prove with subtle kinds of evidence.
When you have the situation where you have to rely upon the defendant`s
statements to disprove basically his side of the story. And it`s an uphill
battle. It`s difficult. I don`t feel that they have blown it necessarily.
I don`t feel as critical of them as Mr. Martin does. But I do think that
they have -- they have an uphill battle for themselves. However, they have
shown that in his inconsistencies, he has consistently shown the desire to
paint himself in a better light.

Usually, when somebody gives inconsistent statements, and that`s very
common, by the way. If I recount to you something that happened yesterday,
I`ll make mistakes. I will say things a little differently now than I did
maybe an hour ago or a day ago. But that`s OK. I mean those kinds of
things are very -- can be very innocent, and simply a matter of
interpretation. But with Zimmerman, the inconsistencies are large, and
they go to the heart of the matter, and they consistently show him trying
to paint himself as the victim and Trayvon Martin as the aggressor.

That is not the kind of inconsistency that can be deemed I think an
innocent mistake. For example, not remembering the name of the street as
an excuse to get out of his car. Claiming at first that the dispatcher
told him to get out and follow Trayvon Martin. And we know that in fact
the opposite is true, the dispatcher told him not to follow. Claiming that
Trayvon Martin jumped out of bushes, only to find out the very next day
that there were no bushes. These things show I think a consciousness of
guilt and a desire to fabricate, to make himself appear to be the victim
instead of the aggressor.

SHARPTON: Now Billy Martin, isn`t it so that some of these
contradictions could matter? For example, in opening statement on the
defense side, they said George Zimmerman had been viciously attacked. And
he said he was sucker punched. Listen to this.


DON WEST, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN`S ATTORNEY: George Zimmerman is not guilty
of murder. He shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense after being viciously
attacked in less than ten minutes from him first seeing Trayvon Martin,
that he, George Zimmerman, would be sucker punched in the face, have his
head pounded on concrete, and wind up shooting and tragically killing
Trayvon Martin.


SHARPTON: Now, the lead detective, Billy, who you quoted, he
testified that George Zimmerman`s injuries were minor, and that Zimmerman
exaggerated how hard he had been hit. Listen to the detective.


MARK O`MARA, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN`S ATTORNEY: Now you said in response to
a question from Mr. de la Rionda yesterday that you perceived Mr.
Zimmerman`s injuries to be minor, correct?


BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: You were asked specifically about
exaggeration. Do you feel he had exaggerated the manner in which he was



SHARPTON: Don`t these kinds of contradictions hurt Mr. Zimmerman`s

MARTIN: Absolutely they do. I think that they -- they forced a jury
to look at Mr. Zimmerman and really assess his credibility. His
credibility on every story, every bit of the story that he has told. What
the defense really has to only try to create reasonable doubt. They`re
just trying to create reasonable doubt. They`re not trying to prove a
case. And if you look at the evidence, I think Marcia is correct, Marcia
Clark, she has assessed and analyzed the prosecution`s case accurately.

But from the defense standpoint, all he has is to attack their case.
And I think the defense has done a very good job of attacking their case.
They have the two lawyers. And you have the good guy and the bad guy. And
I think they`ve aggressively attacked that case. But Mr. Zimmerman`s told
a lot of contradictory -- made statements that are contradictory. And I
think the prosecution may take advantage of that. But that`s all they can

SHARPTON: Marcia Clark and Billy Martin, I`m going to have to leave
it there. Thanks for your time tonight.

MARTIN: Thank you.

CLARK: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Coming up, move over, Bob McDonnell. There is a new
governor ultrasound on the block. Scott Walker`s latest anti-woman bill is
offensive, but the way he signed it into law might be even worse.


SHARPTON: He oversaw the Sanford Police Department the night Trayvon
Martin`s killer was allowed to walk free. And today he testified in court.
That`s coming up. Stay with us.


SHARPTON: It was a Fourth of July weekend full of fireworks and fun.
But as Americans all over the country were celebrating freedom and liberty,
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was busy attacking the federal right for
women in his state. On that sleepy summer Friday, Walker quietly signed
new abortion restrictions into law for Wisconsin. And the big signing was
done in private, no video, no photo opportunity, and all on a sleepy
holiday weekend. Guess what? We`re watching Governor Walker.

That law is in effect today, and it requires pregnant women to have a
mandatory ultrasound, a medical procedure at least 24 hours before an
abortion. Doctors performing abortions must have admitting privileges
within 30 miles of clinics. The law could close down at least two of the
state`s four abortion clinics. Wisconsin joins 11 other states that have
ultrasound requirements before a woman can have an abortion. So the right
to have an abortion is the law of the land unless you live in a republican-
controlled state. Whatever happened to hating big government?

Joining me now is Teri Huyck, president and CEO of Plan Parenthood of
Wisconsin and Joan Walsh, editor at large of and an MSNBC
political analyst. Thanks to you both for being here tonight.


having me, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Teri, let me go to you first. Planned Parenthood and the
ACLU have filed a suit against Wisconsin to try and block this law. A
judge announced today they`ll hear arguments for your lawsuit next
Wednesday. But in the meantime, this law is in effect. What are you doing
to try and help women until then?

HUYCK: Well, we filed last Friday to get a restraining order against
this law going into effect. And we`re hoping to have a ruling on that by
tomorrow. But in the meantime, we are trying to accommodate our patients
from our Appleton Center in our Milwaukee and Madison centers which adds an
extra 200-mile trip for their day.

SHARPTON: Now, Teri, the Governor Walker there in Wisconsin, he
releases a statement saying this bill improves a woman`s ability to make an
informed choice that will protect her physical and mental health now and in
the future. Now, he is putting out statements, but he signs the bill in
hiding as if he doesn`t want the attention. I mean, what is really going
on here?

HUYCK: Well, that statement is just ridiculous because Wisconsin is
already heavily regulated, and our patients all get informed consent and
the best medical care according to standard medical practices. This is
nothing but an attempt to restrict women from obtaining legal and safe

SHARPTON: Joan, 28 states with so-called trap laws that regulate
abortion providers and go beyond what is necessary to insure a patient`s
safety, this Governor Walker signed it on the Friday of the Fourth of July
weekend. No media, no photos. I mean, it almost appears cynical. But he
is following the trend of some other republican-controlled states and
governors around the country. Big picture. What are we looking at here?

WALSH: Well, it`s a really nice happy Independence Day for Wisconsin
women. Isn`t that a nice holiday treat for all of us, Rev? I mean, it is
very cynical. He is kind of trying to have it both ways because he is
obviously pandering to that deeply right wing anti-women, anti-choice base.
He is talked about as a possible 2016 contender. I don`t see it. I think
he is charisma-free, but I could be wrong. And so, he`s not sure which way
he wants to go.

He is not going to do a signing ceremony and hand out pens, but he is
going to sign the bill for sure and release this deeply condescending
statement about women where they`re going to prevent you or postpone you
from having a procedure that you have decide you`d need and force you to
have one that you don`t want. It`s the height of condescension. It`s the
height, as you said, of big government intrusion. But there is a part of
him that wants to have it both ways, I think.

SHARPTON: Now, the state of Texas has announced that they have their
abortion bill going up tomorrow, and it`s expected to pass the house. It
would ban abortion after 20 weeks, insure clinics within 30 miles of
hospital, require nonsurgical abortions to be performed at surgical
centers, and require operating rooms and hallways at clinics to be larger.
Joan, take away that -- it`s the law of the land, federal law of the land.
Just the politics of it is not popular. Can`t they see the politics of
this if they can`t see the federal laws and the rights of women?

WALSH: Well, apparently not. I mean, ironically, this -- making
doctors have admitting privileges, Rev, it`s actually such a safe procedure
that they don`t wind up referring many women at all to hospitals. So it`s
a ridiculous irony. And then I think it`s very possible that we`re going
to have a 2016 that is even worse than 2012 in terms of giving us
virulently anti-choice candidates on the republican side. You`ve got Rick
Perry mentioned, you`ve got Scott Walker mentioned, you`ve got Marco Rubio
who is now talking about he might be the guy who is going to bring the
Senate 20-week ban to the floor. It`s really remarkable that they learn

SHARPTON: Yes. Well, Teri, we`re going to be watching that lawsuit
and watching your fight there in Wisconsin. And following it up. Teri
Huyck and Joan Walsh, thank you both for your time tonight.

HUYCK: Thanks, Reverend Al.

SHARPTON: We`ll be right back with "Reply Al."


SHARPTON: Fifty years ago, Dr. King said, "I have a dream." Today we
have made progress, but the struggle to expand rights and opportunities
goes on. For blacks, for women, for Latinos, for the LGBT community, this
summer we`ll highlight stories of individual efforts to move this nation
forward to advance the dream.

ANNOUNCER: Advancing the dream, a special series all summer long, on
POLITICS NATION with Al Sharpton, week nights at 6:00 on MSNBC.


SHARPTON: It`s time for "Reply Al." Keep sending me all your
questions. Friend or foe, I want to know. Today a lot of e-mails on the
Zimmerman trial. The first one is about Billy, the Sanford Police chief
who resigned after this case made national headlines.

Lorenzo writes, "Did the police chief resign because he did not want
to arrest Zimmerman?"

Well, Lorenzo, Mr. Lee was fired after letting Mr. Zimmerman walk out
of that station with no arrest. We had a dead 17-year-old, yet no arrest.
And seeing him called to the stand today reminded me why this needed to go
to trial. I went with others early in to say that this should not be
decided in the back of a police station. This should go to trial. Let`s
not forget I was never called until Mr. Lee, two weeks after the killing,
said, and I`m quoting him. I`ll put his quote up. He said "Mr. Zimmerman
has made a statement of self-defense. Until we can establish probable
cause to dispute that, we don`t have grounds to arrest him."

Two weeks later, you didn`t know that the injuries were not serious,
you did not know that Mr. Zimmerman had told different stories? You didn`t
know he hasn`t been pummeled? You decided with all of the contradictions
that we now know that that was not probable cause. The protest was that
Mr. Lee and the police there had become the judge and jury, and that was
not fair. That was something that we protested. We wanted a trial. And I
think with all of the contradictions and all that we have seen and all of
the inconsistencies, we were clearly right, that there was enough reason to
go to trial.

And there was probable cause. Now it went deeper than Lee, because as
we went into Sanford, we heard horrible stories. Lee had only been there a
year. There were stories of this going on way back in the history of the
Sanford Police Department. Lee had to resign because clearly they were
continuing in what was not a balanced and fair way in the judgment of many.

Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now.


Transcription Copyright 2013 ASC LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is
granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not
reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or
internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall
user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may
infringe upon MSNBC and ASC LLC`s copyright or other proprietary rights or
interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of