government s relationship to they re not telling people to go out and kill but these spreading ideology and hatred that inspires people. why then use that language? if, indeed, when people say you can t blame him for it i mean directly he didn t do it obviously. of course. but why then use the language of invaders, the same thing that the terrorist in new zealand did and other terrorists. why use that language? because xenophobia, islamaphobia, racism, those are core parts of president trump s political identity. that s what he uses to appeal to many of his followers. and he s not trying to call for violence, but you have to understand there s some people who hear the message and are driven over the brink. and that s the danger that we face here because words of hatred lead to acts of hatred. and president trump needs to understand that. he needs to stop with this rhetoric, but he refuses to do it. darryl, you have said typically during republican administrations, we ve s
of articles is a voice many are listening to when it comes to conservatives. immigration is the number one issue that will determine 2016? i think for a lot of republican primary voters, particularly in the conservative grassroots of the party, i think it is fair to say imdpragz is the number one issue and driving the conversation that is happe the primary season. frankly donald trump galvinnized core parts the republican base on the part of immigration. it shows a striking imbalance between a let of grassroots activist and party establishment in washington on this issue. let me ask you about about that. we have interesting things to say about how it really distinguishes different candidates. and this is what phillis scha
expert for the court. he s testified in many other cases. nel is shrewdly trying to get the persuasive value diluted. reporter: the key to the testimony is really trying to strike at core parts of the state case. absolutely. and you can see this by the face that nel kept him on the stand for two days. he realizes the importance of devaluating that evidence. we ve seen him put evidence at the sound of the cricket bat and could that have been the cricket bat mistaken by the gunshots by the ear witnesses which would mean that they, in fact, heard pistorius screaming and not steenkamp. and also in terms of ballistics. dixon suggesting that the bullets were fired in quick succession, supporting pistorius version of events, rather than the state saying he shot slowly and, therefore, intended to kill. core parts of the case being called into question. again, robyn curnow speaking with cnn legal analyst kelly phelps. when we come back, the world