Judge pressing jurors to see if they are impartial

[HarleyDog]

(04-15-2024, 07:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Perhaps.  This trial is the most over the top combo of the OJ trial, the Michael Jackson trial, and the Clinton/Lewinsky thing rolled into one.  

The OJ effect comes in the idea that this rich and famous person is a victim because the justice system is out to get him, aka Johnny Cochran was able to use Mark Fuhrman as an example that the LA PD was basically the KKK with badges and therefore the more evidence they had (2 dead bodies and DNA) turned into a case of "more evidence, more evidence it was set up." Put the system on trial, most systems aren't very popular and they'll lose against a charismatic defendant who is successfully presented as simultaneously powerful and a victim.  Anyone I've met who says OJ is innocent (not even not guilty, which is the legal term for how he was found) completely forgets the physical and DNA evidence and says it was "circumstantial" and that Marcia Clark is a *****.

The Michael Jackson trial comes into play where the play is going to be to just say that Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, like the parents alleging MJ diddled their kids, are just money-grubbing liars.  Put them on trial in the public court, complain the media is out to get you, and maybe like MJ Trump could play the "I'm old and frail and harmless" routine to help curry sympathy, but I doubt he has the ego to play weak for the cameras.

The one thing I will admit is that Trump does has some political acumen, because in 2016 his margins were so thin and his hold on the GOP was so new that he couldn't have afforded to let the info that he cheated on his pregnant wife get out there until after the election.  No denying the Comey letter hurt Hillary, so Trump was wise to keep his own scandal a secret until he was powerful enough for it not to matter.

And that brings me to my comparison to the Clinton/Lewinski scandal where a lot of people (including a 16 year old me who also thought Trump was as total badass at the time) just brushed off the Clinton thing as the media going after him, it not being a big deal because he was a "good president" and affairs being something powerful men just did and we all know it and aspire to be them. Clinton was so good at politics that "they" had to "go after his personal life" after all, right?

This case has it all.


And yes, I was mowing the lawn for 2 hours and had time to think and this is what I came up with instead of inventing the next Snuggie or something. 

I was listening to a Jon Justice podcast the other day and he was playing a clip from one of the jurors in the OJ case. They all thought he was guilty, but voted not guilty because they were afraid of more riots. This came shortly after the Rodney King riots. In case anyone wants to listen, his podcast was dated 4-12. Last Friday, and found on IHeart radio.

As for Clinton, I felt the same way you did and I couldn't figure out why people gave a damn about his personal life. I don't care if a POTUS bangs half the planet. What I do care about is if he has our country in his best interest and works hard to makes us better, which he did. Great president IMO. And, before someone chimes in and says, "but he was banging her in the WH." Again, who cares? America can afford a set of blue curtains.