Convicted felon Donald J. Trump is STILL a defendant and we should not forget this

It is not a question of whether the coverage was positive or negative, just a question of media coverage in and of itself. There were 8 black women on that jury, which defense attorney Johnnie Cochran. In other words, OJ Simpson had the best defense team for his charges that money can buy at that time. And those 8 women had the attitude that Johnnie Cochran could exploit in that trial, and he did a fine job of that.

 

So, you're saying the defense exploited the jurors other biases? And that it didn't matter that OJ was pretty much universally regarded an American hero prior to his trial?

 

Hitler was construed to be a "German" by the German Nationality Law that went into effect several months before World War I began in 1914. Moreover, Hitler served in the German Army throughout the war, rising to the rank of Corporal, and winning the Iron Cross. Second Class, in 1914, and, the Iron Cross, First Class, in 1918. Rightly or wrongly, Hitler was given a 'free pass' by Germany because of his bravery in battle and his loyalty.

Germany was in a hell of a mess after World War I for years, and the budding National Socialists were only a small party within a large number of political factions -- the more powerful of those being the Communists (which scared the hell out of the aristocratic 'big money' in Germany back then).

 

He was never German citizen until 1930 or so, and was done by the Nazi Party using a fake government office to make him a German Citizen. He applied under that law after WW1 and was denied repeatedly. But he was Austrian Citizen by birth, one quarter Jew by Birth, despite the claim of being "pure Aryan" descent when he got married in 1945

 

In the OJ Simpson case, yes, not so with DJT by the prosecution. Prosecutors can use bias by telling the jurors how bad the defendant is. He is a bad guy, not to be liked, and not present any evidence to link the defendant to the crime. In this case, a murder suspect was acquitted. The jury agreed the guy was not likeable, but had no bearing on the evidence presented. They asked, "is this all?" That is why they got the acquittal.

It does not happen in every case, but the defense uses this tactic more often than the prosecution. It happened by Trump's defense team when they cross-examined Cohen and Daniels. It didn't work out.

 

Meh, you could also argue that Hitler didn't become a German "citizen" until the Anschluss with Austria (his country of birth) in 1938. The point I was making was that he had been a convicted felon in 1924, and yet became the Chancellor of Germany less than 10 years later. I was merely struck by the irony of the whole thing. No 'biggie'....

 

even the people who lived in Austria and became part of the Anschluss were never German citizens unless they applied for said citizenship.

 

So... OJ couldn't have had a fair and impartial jury, because he was pretty much universally known and regarded an American hero, prior to his trial. He was found not guilty for a crime that almost everyone thinks he actually did commit.

Proof is in the pudding.

But DJT, a person who is arguably the most famous person on the planet, known to everyone... and, rightly or wrongly, has endured DAILY relentless political character assassination in 99% of mainstream and social media... could? And this because of blind faith that his jurors could somehow disregard the 6 years of relentless 24/7/365 propaganda they have ALL been force fed, and could set all those biases aside and render a fair and impartial verdict?

I'll ask this a second time: Do you think a jury assembled from Trump rally attendees would have rendered the same verdict as the Manhattan 12? Rhetorical. Of course not. This means that neither famous heroes, nor famous villains, can possibly receive a truly fair and impartial jury trial when they are known by the jurors, and the jurors have already prejudged an opinion of the character of the defendant.

 

OJ had a fair trial. I think any change of venue, especially to a predominantly all-white suburban neighborhood would have constituted an unfair trial basis argument by the defense if OJ was convicted, in those times. But what you are arguing is the defense made it "unfair." The definition of fair or unfair falls on the shoulders of the Prosecution, not the defense.

The problem with your argument is that anyone of is famous, or infamous, would be able to get away with murder because of their fame. And given today's internet where 15 seconds of fame is a constant occurance, then no one on the internet could be charged and tried. That is unreasonable at best.

DJT got a fair trial under NY law. He was given his charges, 34 of them, he was allowed to plead guilty or not guilty, he confronted his accusers in court, he heard the evidence, he was tried by a jury of his peers, which he fully participated in choosing those, etc. So, it is fair. Fame and fortune just add complexity to the trial, but that's it.

 

I don't disagree that DJT got the fairest trial that our current system can produce. My disagreement is that in DJT's case in particular, a fair and impartial jury is impossible due to years of relentless public character assassination by political propagandists.

 

They were nevertheless required to comply with all rules, regulations, and behaviors expected of citizens of the Third Reich. Example: all Austrian boys were forced to join the Hitler Youth, and, all Austrian girls were forced to join "The League of German Girls" (Bund Deutscher Mädel).

Interesting side note: After Pope Benedict XVI was discovered to have been a member of the Hitler Youth, the Catholic Church decided to get rid of him by exiling him off as some kind of "Pope Emeritus" until his death in 2022.
The young Joseph Alois Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth – as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after March 1939; nevertheless, the Church 'insiders' **** a brick and found themselves a Leftist Liberal to take Benedict's place, and this "Pope Francis" continues to play that part to this day....

Anyway, Hitler was a convicted jail bird in Germany during the Weimar Republic, and yet he became Chancellor of Germany less than 10 years later. Things can change -- especially an angry, frustrated, maddened population after they feel like they've been ****ed-over long enough! I extrapolate from that lesson in history that it could conceivably be possible for Trump to be elected as president even though he's a 'convicted felon'... but it's highly unlikely.

 

This is why there is a jury selection process in which both the prosecution and the defense were in agreement.

 

You gather wrong.

I am a US citizen, born in Ohio, raised in Ohio.

I just work in Germany.

That's a difference with a big distinction.

So, good luck with that one.

 

Oh, you mean the same appeals court that denied every single one of Trump's motions to dismiss? To rescind the legal gag order?

LOL

 

Will you dare to comment on here when the appellate court proves you wrong? What size shoe does your mouth fit?

 

That would be because superior courts generally prefer that the lower courts finish making there mess before the step in and clean it up,

 

Yeah, I spent some time in Germany myself. I'd be happier for you today but for the fact that my German friends tell me over and over that Germany has turned into an even bigger pile of ruined, hyperliberal crap than we have become over here. And, no, my friends are not "AfD" people at all... just disaffected CDU "moderate" types who are in complete dismay at what Olaf has been doing since Kanzlerin Merkel's departure.

Anyway, the only point I was making was that even though Hitler was a convicted felon, less than nine years after his little 'vacation' in Landsberg Prison, he became Kanzler of Germany. What irony! If he has any knowledge of German history (doubtful), Donald Trump could possibly take encouragement from that fact... but it doesn't matter, because he will not (NOT) get 270 electoral votes in 2024 -- period!

 

I don't think you understand the court system in NY State. The appeals court IS the highest court in that state. Decided is decided. The court called the "supreme Court" in NY is not the highest court.

 

Which as I and others have said the over turn may not happen until the appeals leave the state of New York. And what you said isn't relevant to what I said. There are several courts in New York superior to Marchans.

 

The appeals can't leave the state.

It's a state prosecution, trial, verdict and soon, sentencing over crimes that have been in the books for a very long time, and not just in this state. There is no possibility of appeal outside of NY save the US Supreme Court and that is not going to happen.

 

Yes…. the SCOTUS can step in when an American citizen’s constitutional rights have been violated by the state…

 

Yes it can any criminal conviction can provided the person filing it can beg borrow the requisite fee if any. Truly appalling ignorance on your part.