OJT — Acquitted forever!

Alan Dershowitz was even part of both defense teams — you can’t make this shit up!

Will this meme turn white Republicans into OJ defenders for the first time in known history? Let’s find out!

3he89v.gif (click to show)

Or do you think all black people support OJ?

"white Republicans" is the phrase I used and are the group I'm talking about now. This is a group that existed long before Trump and will exist long after

They have been pretty staunchly in the camp of: OJ did murder Nicole Simpson and that other guy. And so am I, by the way! I think he did it.

I have offered no opinions on what I think black people think about OJ and I see no reason to now

Why would it? Trump is innocent. OJ not so much. Who cares who the lawyers were? Oh. Is this because you are a lawyer?! What a twunt.

Dershowitz is the hired gun of hired guns, a total hack, and it’s so like Trump to bring him on

As for “innocence”: how do we know? Did Trump have a full and fair trial in the Senate?

I submit OJ’s trial was less of a mess than Trump’s and dived significantly deeper into real evidence

How long was OJ’s trial — 11 months! (Super long for a criminal trial actually)

And Trump’s? Two weeks, if that?
—How many firsthand witnesses were called?
—Did Trump himself testify?
—How many documents under subpoena are still blocked? Does anyone really know, other than Trump’s team?

This is the kind of “trial” you get when a partial jury of partisan Senators gets to play the role of judge as well

We already know Trump is guilty as hell for Obstruction of Congress (Count II) — but I guess we’ll just have to wait until the next Democratic administration releases all the blocked documents and gets the witnesses under oath to truly know about Count I

I think Dershowitz is probably a scumbag, but that's rich.

And OJ killed two people. He even wrote a 'if I HAD killed them' book. Trump made a phone call that got him nothing. Pretty shitty comparison.

Cry to Schiff and his cronies for rushing through the quickest impeachment hearing ever with a weak case. They could have subpoenaed Bolton then but fighting him would have taken too long. BOO HOO

Hey! Why'd Clinton walk for perjury? He was taped lying under oath.

Uh-huh. The House inquiry that took three months, and got as far as it could before hitting the brick wall of Trump Administration stonewalling, was "rushed"

And the two-week Senate trial with no new witnesses at all, but featuring a whole bunch of grandstanding by both hired and elected GOP partisan hacks, wasn't "rushed" at all

Always cute to hear Republicans argue that Dems should have gone into court to fight all the subpoenas, making it likely the impeachment hearing process would have drug out into summer or possibly beyond the 2020 election. Yeah, that would have been awesome. And I'm sure y'all would have sat by patiently as the process played out and refrained from accusing Dems of staging their own version of "election rigging"

In fact, the proper thing to do in order to contest a subpoena is for the person *under subpoena* to go to court to try to quash it if they object. But this Administration didn't even bother to do that. They just waved around the wand of Executive Privilege and sometimes didn't even bother to state a reason for not responding.

Not impeaching Trump at all after all the rotten shit he's done (Ukrainegate only being the most flagrant violation) would have been a mistake.

So: I am pretty satisfied with the way House Dems handled this, and turning over the obstructed investigation to the GOP Senate for them to own their part in it. I have no idea what the general public is going to think about all this, but from a lawyer's perspective, I think Dems did as well as they could.

Next Democratic presidency? The curtain will be thrown open and we'll see just everything this Administration has been hiding.

Unless Trump rips up all the documents first.

Say after me. Ken Starr. 4 year investigation.

You damn well know the case gets made in congress. How many witnesses you need for a transcribed phone call with tons of witnesses to it?

Why was the whistleblower not named? That happen with Snowden? Whistleblower protection means you can't be fired for it, not that you can't be named but I guess Trump obstructed him being called as a witness, huh? Oh wait! He's a cia spook with ties to schiff.

Sure, whatever helps you sleep. If mentioning corruption in a call where he received nothing in return is the worst... No fast and furiouses, no IRSgate, no dead ambassadors, no killing US citizens overseas by drone without trial, no selling uranium to RUSSIA!!!...

Does Kyle reply?

No, because he's too busy now proving to me how popular he is in - get this - PoliticsTOO.

My point was that Trump supporters will never defend OJ, which is what your comment just above that said. Also, innocent until proven guilty (emphasis on the word "proven" - not hearsay which is all the do-nothing Dems had).
35hor2.jpg (click to show)

In your first reply, you opined Trump was innocent and that OJ was “not so much”

Now you’re saying “innocent until proven guilty”

Well? OJ was acquitted after an 11-month trial: That means OJ must be innocent in your book, right?

If not, why not?

OJ found guilty in the civil trial you dimwit.
Seems like my comment to not melt is not working. Try this instead.
3ohht8.jpg (click to show)

Astute observation! The civil trial came later — and so may eventual justice for Trump and his minions, depending on how freely he uses the pardon power, and whether Trump does indeed have the “absolute right” to pardon himself

Or whether he steps down 5 minutes before leaving office and hopes Pence does it for him

Also of note: Civil cases have a different standard of proof than criminal cases.

In criminal cases, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is quite high. There’s fierce debate on exactly how to quantify that, but I think of it as about 85% certainty.

In civil cases, the standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which is routinely interpreted as little as 50.1% culpability.

So? If a jury in a civil case judged OJ at least 50.1% probably responsible for Nicole Simpson’s murder — but a criminal jury found that OJ’s likely culpability did not reach the 85% level — does that mean OJ’s guilty, or not?

Further: Do you know what the legal standard in impeachment is?

...
...
...

There is none! Senators do not have to justify their votes whatsoever.

The Constitution provides no specific guidelines on how Senators should weigh their votes, and no way to review either the impeachment trial process or Senators’ votes on appeal.