Thank you for stating this. I don’t need a court to tell me this was unconstitutional all the way.
So you believe OJ was innocent since the jury found that?
we do need a court to tell us what is constitutional and what is not...it’s in the constitution.
Actually, no we don't. The reason is in the first three words "We the people". The Constitution is the People's (citizens of the United States) document.
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
There have been far to many reversed and egregious judicial findings to pretend the judicial system is infallible. The final determinant of what is Constitutional ALWAYS resides with the people.
See my post above, if that is what it takes.
Actually, Mike…we do need a court to tell us what is constitutional and what is not...it’s in the constitution.
OJ? I think he stabbed two people to death, but I have to accept that he beat the system legitimately…he bought better lawyers than the LA prosecutor’s office did.
Court is about who tells the more believable story…not the more truthful one. It is a fundamental flaw of the adversarial legal system…one from which Trump suffered, but OJ benefited.
Well, they couldn't call the next guy Stalin. Or Mao. Oh, wait...Hilarious how they’ve spent 8-ish years calling him Hitler but now they think “felon” is the label that will keep people from supporting him….idiots.
I’m old enough to remember Trump’s first presidency. He wasn’t Hitler. He wasn’t a dictator. He has a loud, brash mouth but he’s fairly vanilla on matters of actual policy.
And then what’s next? What are they gonna call the next guy? Once you call someone Hitler, there’s really no going back.
“Trump was literally Hitler but this next guy is SO MUCH WORSE!!!!”
Interesting. Well, first, it's in case law, not the constitution. Marbury v Madison established judicial review and the power to declare a law unconstitutional. I don't disagree with it. I think though not explicit in the constitution, it's implied in Article III, and through separation of powers.
Okay, second, OJ won the case because of race.
Not because he had the more believable story. I suspect the jury members really didn't think he was innocent, but could not bring themselves to saying he's guilty.
Trump did not lose because he had a less believable story. He lost because that was the desired outcome by the people in charge of the trial, and the TDS jury.
Third, we don't need a court to understand that it was a sham trial. We need a court for any legal action to reverse it. So you don't get to tell people they can't believe it was a sham.
Fourth, you don't get to have it both ways. You complained about Trump using the courts in civil matters to further his own interests at the expense of others. But you don't want to accept that he beat the system legitimately. And you're quite willing to accept OJ doing it.
I don't have to accept the court's verdict on OJ. That ************ was guilty as a person could be. Trump was railroaded on this. For any of the trials that take place in NY or DC, Trump will lose. If for no other reason, that he can't win in those venues, because the fix is in.
Was Trump allowed to bring forth all his witnesses? Why not?Trump lost because the jury believed the story the prosecution told them, and Trump didn’t tell them one at all.
What crimes was he convicted of and what proof do they have?Some people think the Earth is flat, some people think Trump was railroaded by a vast conspiracy.
I think Trump committed the crimes he was tried and convicted for.
Most of those felons, if convicted by standing British law at the time, would have been sentenced to death and probably a public execution.
So…to refute my point that a court has to decide what the constitution says, you make the point that a court had to decide what the constitution said?
Okay.
At the end of the day, if OJ were white and all the other circumstances were present, OJ would have been convicted. Everyone watched the same trial. Everyone thought OJ was guilty as ****. But those jurors had to say it in deliberations in front of their peers.OJ won because the jury didn’t trust the prosecution...they saw Clark and Furhman as extensions of the same LAPD that hassle them everyday in the streets, not as arbiters of justice.
At the end of the day, the jury didn’t believe the story the prosecution was selling, and the defense was capable enough to capitalize on that. They hung Clark up constantly, and hearing Furhman say the N-word a hundred and fifty times absolutely ruined the prosecution‘s credibility with that jury.
********. Trump lost because the jurors thought he was guilty before the trial even started. The prosecution did not bring the right receipts. Their star witness--no, not the ho--proved to be a lying sack of ****, who stole from Trump. They did not have receipts that proved the payments were for the purpose of paying for the ho's silence. And they certainly did not prove the elevating charge which would support the elevation to felony, that Trump committed fraud by paying the ho off to run for president. That was a reach from the beginning.The prosecution showed up with a fully-fleshed narrative, complete with receipts. They provided documents and supported those documents with testimony from multiple corroborating witnesses.
Trump slept at the defense table while his ”star“ witness tried to intimidate the judge…all in front of the jury, mind you… and then refused to testify in his own defense.
Trump lost because the jury believed the story the prosecution told them, and Trump didn’t tell them one at all.
Some people think the Earth is flat, some people think Trump was railroaded by a vast conspiracy.
I think Trump committed the crimes he was tried and convicted for.
Do I really say that? I may have said it once or twice, but it's not common. What I typically say for that case is less metaphorical. Something like, they're not the same thing, and then I explain why I think they're different.Apples and oranges…as you like to say.
Nah, he’ll lose because he’s guilty as charged…just like in NY.
So why was the former FEC chairman not allowed to testify?So…to refute my point that a court has to decide what the constitution says, you make the point that a court had to decide what the constitution said?
Okay.
OJ won because the jury didn’t trust the prosecution...they saw Clark and Furhman as extensions of the same LAPD that hassle them everyday in the streets, not as arbiters of justice.
At the end of the day, the jury didn’t believe the story the prosecution was selling, and the defense was capable enough to capitalize on that. They hung Clark up constantly, and hearing Furhman say the N-word a hundred and fifty times absolutely ruined the prosecution‘s credibility with that jury.
The prosecution showed up with a fully-fleshed narrative, complete with receipts. They provided documents and supported those documents with testimony from multiple corroborating witnesses.
Trump slept at the defense table while his ”star“ witness tried to intimidate the judge…all in front of the jury, mind you… and then refused to testify in his own defense.
Trump lost because the jury believed the story the prosecution told them, and Trump didn’t tell them one at all.
Some people think the Earth is flat, some people think Trump was railroaded by a vast conspiracy.
I think Trump committed the crimes he was tried and convicted for.
Apples and oranges…as you like to say.
Nah, he’ll lose because he’s guilty as charged…just like in NY.