OJ Simpson defense for Trump will it work

[Sand Castle]

2019 feels like de ja Vu. During the OJ Simpson trial all evidence and facts pointed to Simpson's guilt. The only way for Simpson to be found not guilty was to discredit the facts and the fact collectors. Lindsey Graham is out in the media trying to discredit the FBI, Trump is endlessly trying to discredit Mueller, FBI, so called MSM. All Trump supporters on this forum discounting reality, and basically everyone involved with Trump wants the American citizen to believe facts and fact checkers are all lying. To what end would all the media be lying, and does anyone believe all media is working together like a conspiracy? Another Trump tactic where he accuses someone of something he has actually done, conspiracy, to deflect and confuse. Discrediting prosecutors in OJ trial is one thing, but dicrediting the fabric of our country, the DOJ, FBI, journalists is dangerous to our democracy.

 

[DaveFagan]

Unless they do collude in a scumbag fashion collectively ascribed as the NeoCon Deep State.
/

 

[Lutherf]

2019 feels like de ja Vu. During the OJ Simpson trial all evidence and facts pointed to Simpson's guilt. The only way for Simpson to be found not guilty was to discredit the facts and the fact collectors. Lindsey Graham is out in the media trying to discredit the FBI, Trump is endlessly trying to discredit Mueller, FBI, so called MSM. All Trump supporters on this forum discounting reality, and basically everyone involved with Trump wants the American citizen to believe facts and fact checkers are all lying. To what end would all the media be lying, and does anyone believe all media is working together like a conspiracy? Another Trump tactic where he accuses someone of something he has actually done, conspiracy, to deflect and confuse. Discrediting prosecutors in OJ trial is one thing, but dicrediting the fabric of our country, the DOJ, FBI, journalists is dangerous to our democracy.

OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case because the jury adhered to the most basic principle of a free nation, the presumption of innocence and the requirement to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty of the charges levied against them. Is Donald Trump (and every other American) not entitled to the same treatment?

I would suggest that it is less Donald Trump that is on trial here but, rather, our entire system of justice and, ultimately, our conviction to remain a free nation.

 

[Captain Adverse]

2019 feels like de ja Vu. During the OJ Simpson trial all evidence and facts pointed to Simpson's guilt.

Apparently the jury in the case did not think so, and to my knowledge whatever else he has done since, he has yet to admit he did it.

The rest is just a false equivilancy aimed to justify "I hate Trump!" :coffeepap:

 

[joko104]

This bizarre analogy is going nowhere. :roll:

 

[Sand Castle]

OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case because the jury adhered to the most basic principle of a free nation, the presumption of innocence and the requirement to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty of the charges levied against them. Is Donald Trump (and every other American) not entitled to the same treatment?

I would suggest that it is less Donald Trump that is on trial here but, rather, our entire system of justice and, ultimately, our conviction to remain a free nation.

My point is the appearance of guilt in each senario and both used discredit the facts approach. I am waiting for ourJustice system to present the facts. Facts and applying facts to the rule of law separate us from third world dictatorships. Following the results of investigations then all sides of this issue should abide by the facts and whether vindication or consequences. But I'm confused by the need for an innocent man to go on the offense discrediting justice without the facts of the prosecutors case. Although Trump knows all the facts he was involved with and appears to be applying a guilty man's defense. Or do we have a cynical President against everyone but his supporters and thinks everyone is out to get him, that would be delusional and disaualifying

 

[Sand Castle]

This bizarre analogy is going nowhere. :roll:

Well it went here

 

[Stealers Wheel]

OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case because the jury adhered to the most basic principle of a free nation, the presumption of innocence and the requirement to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty of the charges levied against them. Is Donald Trump (and every other American) not entitled to the same treatment?

I would suggest that it is less Donald Trump that is on trial here but, rather, our entire system of justice and, ultimately, our conviction to remain a free nation.

I followed the OJ trial closely.

First, the prosecution is obligated to prove "beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT" not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Big difference.

Second, as far as I could tell, the OJ Dream Team defense was the only party in the courtroom doing its job. The judge (Ito) completely lost control of his courtroom, tolerating foolishness from the defense that no other judge would allow. In fact, this was demonstrated at one point when a different judge had to decide an issue regarding Ito's wife's participation. Johnny Cochran started with his usual crap, and he was shut down by the judge immediately, the judge saying "We're not in Ito's courtroom today, so knock it off!"

The prosecution put a witness on the stand, Det. Mark Fuhrman, that they knew was going to lie. On cross, he was shown to be a liar. The jury was rightfully entitled to disregard all of his testimony. For the prosecution to allow this was an outrage.

The prosecution spent weeks explaining the science of DNA analysis to a group of jurors who couldn't spell "DNA."

California juries are notorious for not convicting celebrities. This was no exception.

 

[trouble13]

My point is the appearance of guilt in each senario and both used discredit the facts approach. I am waiting for ourJustice system to present the facts. Facts and applying facts to the rule of law separate us from third world dictatorships. Following the results of investigations then all sides of this issue should abide by the facts and whether vindication or consequences. But I'm confused by the need for an innocent man to go on the offense discrediting justice without the facts of the prosecutors case. Although Trump knows all the facts he was involved with and appears to be applying a guilty man's defense. Or do we have a cynical President against everyone but his supporters and thinks everyone is out to get him, that would be delusional and disaualifying

The media has not waited for the facts to begin his trial in the court of public opinion. Why shouldn't he he defend the accusations against him? I would of give your post more credit if you called out both sides equally because your point has some merit but you have made it partisan by only criticizing one side when both are guilty of your complaint.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Sand Castle]

The media has not waited for the facts to begin his trial in the court of public opinion. Why shouldn't he he defend the accusations against him? I would of give your post more credit if you called out both sides equally because your point has some merit but you have made it partisan by only criticizing one side when both are guilty of your complaint.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

From one partisan to another. Why would I call out both sides equally. The MSM has no guilt, no conspiracy, they are presenting facts. Often each side spins the facts. So I guess I should have spelled this out to avoid the appearance of blind following. When the facts are spun I research the actual fact and discount either liberal or Tea party spin. Also I'm not sure how to equally evaluate when Trump says one thing one day and completely lies about another day, this from his mouth, his lips. I guess I will call him a truth teller on one day and a lier another day. The media has pointed out facts, as facts began to grow concern has grown. He has not defended the facts of the accusations with his facts. He avoided revealing taxes, will not provide a complete deposition to vindicate himself on investigations. What I see is he has no facts so try to get rid of the facts. Innocent people do not get into this kind of mess.

 

[poweRob]

OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case because the jury adhered to the most basic principle of a free nation, the presumption of innocence and the requirement to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty of the charges levied against them. Is Donald Trump (and every other American) not entitled to the same treatment?

I would suggest that it is less Donald Trump that is on trial here but, rather, our entire system of justice and, ultimately, our conviction to remain a free nation.

It's called beyond "reasonable doubt". Not beyond "shadow of a doubt".

 

[poweRob]

I followed the OJ trial closely.

First, the prosecution is obligated to prove "beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT" not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Big difference.

Second, as far as I could tell, the OJ Dream Team defense was the only party in the courtroom doing its job. The judge (Ito) completely lost control of his courtroom, tolerating foolishness from the defense that no other judge would allow. In fact, this was demonstrated at one point when a different judge had to decide an issue regarding Ito's wife's participation. Johnny Cochran started with his usual crap, and he was shut down by the judge immediately, the judge saying "We're not in Ito's courtroom today, so knock it off!"

The prosecution put a witness on the stand, Det. Mark Fuhrman, that they knew was going to lie. On cross, he was shown to be a liar. The jury was rightfully entitled to disregard all of his testimony. For the prosecution to allow this was an outrage.

The prosecution spent weeks explaining the science of DNA analysis to a group of jurors who couldn't spell "DNA."

California juries are notorious for not convicting celebrities. This was no exception.

Beat me to it.

 

[trouble13]

From one partisan to another. Why would I call out both sides equally. The MSM has no guilt, no conspiracy, they are presenting facts. Often each side spins the facts. So I guess I should have spelled this out to avoid the appearance of blind following. When the facts are spun I research the actual fact and discount either liberal or Tea party spin. Also I'm not sure how to equally evaluate when Trump says one thing one day and completely lies about another day, this from his mouth, his lips. I guess I will call him a truth teller on one day and a lier another day. The media has pointed out facts, as facts began to grow concern has grown. He has not defended the facts of the accusations with his facts. He avoided revealing taxes, will not provide a complete deposition to vindicate himself on investigations. What I see is he has no facts so try to get rid of the facts. Innocent people do not get into this kind of mess.

Draw whatever conclusions you like. It's not my place to tell you what to think. I'm waiting for the investigations to conclude and be released. I will decide where the truth lies after I see the facts. Right now the only thing you have to base your opinions on is what comes out of the rumor mills and ministry of propaganda

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Fledermaus]

Unless they do collude in a scumbag fashion collectively ascribed as the NeoCon Deep State.
/

CT Forum over there - - - >

 

[Sand Castle]

Draw whatever conclusions you like. It's not my place to tell you what to think. I'm waiting for the investigations to conclude and be released. I will decide where the truth lies after I see the facts. Right now the only thing you have to base your opinions on is what comes out of the rumor mills and ministry of propaganda

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I totally agree if there is no connection then case closed. Trump is vindicated. Trump still tells too many lies for my liking. Many politicians, each side, lie or mislead to persuade voters. My observation and opinion of Trump is that he lies to cover his butt or because he hasn't done the work to understand a particular subject. I can not respect that in his position. I prefer a Democratic President, but I also have the ability to normally accept whoever is leading us. I also support an old fashioned tug of war between the left and the right creating balance in policy that shape this country.

 

[trouble13]

I totally agree if there is no connection then case closed. Trump is vindicated. Trump still tells too many lies for my liking. Many politicians, each side, lie or mislead to persuade voters. My observation and opinion of Trump is that he lies to cover his butt or because he hasn't done the work to understand a particular subject. I can not respect that in his position. I prefer a Democratic President, but I also have the ability to normally accept whoever is leading us. I also support an old fashioned tug of war between the left and the right creating balance in policy that shape this country.

I respect that

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk