If you ever think that the judicial system usually gets things "right" check out the OJ Simpson case

Merchan has actually bent the rules in Trump's favor. Any other defendant putting jurors and witnesses in danger by irresponsible and vicious statements would be in jail.

Wisely, Merchan has just fined him. The last thing we need is a whiny big mouthed martyr.

The Martyrs who are in heaven went praising God and forgiving their persecutors. Even considering this defendant to be a martyr is sacrilege.

I don't dislike Trump supporters. I pity them.

I often think of the WWII adage: "and then they came for me."

If, God forbid, he wins, I will know I fought the good fight. But when he turns on his followers, as dictators always will, they will know it is their own fault.

Fantine said:

I don't dislike Trump supporters. I pity them.

I often think of the WWII adage: "and then they came for me."

If, God forbid, he wins, I will know I fought the good fight. But when he turns on his followers, as dictators always will, they will know it is their own fault.

Click to expand...

Trump supporters don't want or need your pity.
Also, the final sentence in your post is simply not going to happen. Trump ain't a dictator and he won't turn against the American people.

Fantine said:

I don't dislike Trump supporters. I pity them.

I often think of the WWII adage: "and then they came for me."

If, God forbid, he wins, I will know I fought the good fight. But when he turns on his followers, as dictators always will, they will know it is their own fault.

Click to expand...

How is he a dictator and how is he going to turn on his supporters?

discombobulated1 said:

Oh my!

He really turned on us last time he was president, didn't he?

that's why we're even more behind him than ever!

Click to expand...

You haven't yet seen the light. Mishandling the pandemic. Endangering our planet through not signing the Paris Accord. Running higher deficits than Biden or Obama due to irresponsible tax cuts to the rich. Abandoning our allies to hobnob with brutal dictators. Trying to overturn the election and inciting violence. And more.
As Peter, Paul and Mary said, when will.they ever learn?

I was pretty sure O.J. would be convicted. And the evidence against him was nearly as overwhelming as the evidence against Trump. So, it's not inconceivable that Trump might get away without being convicted.

discombobulated1 said:

I have read many book about the Simpson murder trial. True, that was years ago so maybe I am not going to remember a lot of what I read but I read the book written by Marcia Clark, prosecutor, and also the one by Darden, fellow prosecutor and then I read others I can't recall the authors of.

So yeh, I have read up on the evidence and .. long story short:

That dude did it in my pov.

I mean, I would just simply say He did it, but since he wasn't convicted, I probably shouldn't put it that way.

Click to expand...

He was declared guilty in the civil trial against him.

civil trial against OJ simpson declared him guilty of the "wrongful death of Goldman and Nicole Brown"




"Although Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case, he was also sued by the victims’ families for wrongful death, and the civil trial began in October 1996. Less than four months later, that jury found him responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and awarded their families $33.5 million in damages."

discombobulated1 said:

So yeh... you get a bunch of bad jurors

Click to expand...

And a lot of political pressure on the entire legal system trying the case --

BobRyan said:

He was declared guilty in the civil trial against him.

Click to expand...

Another coincidence. So was Trump. Not just once, either.
Sexual assault/slander. Fraud.

But we have to be ready to accept that Trump might not be convicted of the felonies for which he has been indicted.

He will never be acquitted, bit given the number of his cult followers, a hung jury with one holdout is possible.

discombobulated1 said:

I have read many book about the Simpson murder trial. True, that was years ago so maybe I am not going to remember a lot of what I read but I read the book written by Marcia Clark, prosecutor, and also the one by Darden, fellow prosecutor and then I read others I can't recall the authors of.

Click to expand...

Someone once said that a jury is a group of 12 who decides who has the best lawyer. OJ Simpson was acquitted by twelve, not by the judge. Don't like the verdict? I didn't, either, but I'd rather face a jury of my peers than a star chamber.

I find it strange to use the OJ trial as an example of the unreliability of the justice system. Part of why the case is so famous is because of how much of an outlier it is.

The Barbarian said:

I was pretty sure O.J. would be convicted. And the evidence against him was nearly as overwhelming as the evidence against Trump. So, it's not inconceivable that Trump might get away without being convicted.

Click to expand...

There was one charge against OJ. Jurors have to decide on 34 counts, one by one, with Trump. The probability that he would beat all 34 counts is highly unlikely unless there is a plant.

Fantine said:

There was one charge against OJ. Jurors have to decide on 34 counts, one by one, with Trump. The probability that he would beat all 34 counts is highly unlikely unless there is a plant.

Click to expand...

Eh. I disagree. Since all the charges are the same behavior I think it's going to be all or nothing. None of the entries were substantially different from each other. If you find one to be legal, then you almost have to find them all to be legal.

The Barbarian said:

I was pretty sure O.J. would be convicted. And the evidence against him was nearly as overwhelming as the evidence against Trump. So, it's not inconceivable that Trump might get away without being convicted.

Click to expand...

Did one of the police officers who investigated Trump claim (under oath) that he had never used the N-word, and then the defense showed audio tapes of him using it repeatedly as well as witnesses who said the police officer said things like "If I had my way, all the ******s would be gathered together and burned" and "The only good ****** is a dead ******"? (N-words omitted)

Because that was the case in the OJ Simpson trial. And that was huge for the defense; they got a ton of work out of that in casting doubt on the police investigation, up to suggesting that the police officer in question had deliberately planted evidence against Simpson in the case; he was the one who found the glove! And of course, there's the famous glove debacle ("if it does not fit, you must acquit"). With issues like that, and in front of a majority black jury who would be especially sympathetic to such arguments, it's not all that hard to see how he got acquitted.

If the prosecution hadn't made the error of trying to make him try on the glove, and if they hadn't gotten stuck with one of the investigators having some pretty credible accusations of both racism and perjury, I think they probably would've gotten a conviction.