Greta Van Susteren got upset!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2013

But then, she made a good point: On July 15, Jasmine Rand discussed the Zimmerman verdict with Greta Van Susteren.

In our view, Van Susteren would have done a better job if she hadn’t gotten so upset with two things Rand said. For starters, when Rand criticized the jury, Van Susteren got a bit hot:

VAN SUSTEREN (&/15/13): Are you saying it was a bad jury?

RAND: I do not believe that Trayvon got equal justice in this instance.

VAN SUSTEREN: Specifically how? Tell me the evidence—tell me the evidence that the jury didn't hear.

RAND: The evidence that the jury didn't hear?

VAN SUSTEREN: Right.

RAND: I don't think that they properly considered the evidence. If they had listened to the evidence and if they had followed the law, then George Zimmerman would have been convicted of murder.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well—

RAND: I mean, he got out of the car—he got out of the car—

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you—you're a lawyer!

RAND: —with a loaded gun. He followed—

Rand is certainly free to think that the jury wrongly considered the evidence. Presumably, some juries do that. Or at least, it’s reasonable to think so.

Van Susteren offered a shaky reaction. This doesn’t make much sense:

VAN SUSTEREN (continuing directly): You're a lawyer, right?

RAND: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: And the whole point of the jury is that we assign the job to weigh the facts. We draft them. We make them sit there. Lot of times, they don't want to be there. We then present the evidence, and the judge then says, Here's the evidence, here's the law, instructs them on the law, and it's their duty—it's not mine, it's not yours, it's not anybody else's in the community, but it's the jury's duty to weigh them. And all of a sudden, suddenly, afterwards, that you say they can't do their job?

That doesn’t really make sense. Of course, the verdict is the jury’s job. That doesn’t necessarily mean that their verdict was correct.

At this point, it was Rand’s turn to make a weak point. Especially in this case, Van Susteren’s rebuttal was important:

RAND (continuing directly): I have a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that's to be a social engineer. And when the law doesn't get it right, I believe that we have the right to peacefully and morally, conscientiously object to the decision of the jury.

That doesn't mean that we believe that it's going to be overturned or that it will or that we don't respect the decision that those six people made. But there are millions of people out there who don't agree with that decision. So it's not just the legal team.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know what the problem is, though? You know, that—

RAND: It's millions of people from all over the world.

VAN SUSTEREN: That's deeply disturbing that you say millions are out there who didn't see it! You know and I know that millions of people who may not like a verdict, whether it's for it or against this case or another, didn't watch the case, didn't sit in the courtroom, didn't weigh the evidence, didn't listen to jury instructions. That's just noise. That's why we have court systems is so that people—so that both sides have an opportunity to be heard.

Especially in this horrible case, Van Susteren's highlighted point is strong. Millions of people have been misinformed about the basic facts of this case, largely by a stream of fake facts which trace back to Rand and the other lawyers.

Millions of people are very upset with the jury’s verdict. Whether the verdict was right or wrong, many of those people may be unclear about the basic evidence, let alone about the law.

Today, the jurors are in hiding. Almost surely, they know the facts of the case much better than many of the millions of citizens who are upset with their verdict.

A person can judge that a verdict is wrong. But first, he or she has to know all the facts. He has to know which facts are false and which facts have been disappeared.