"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:



candidate like Ross Perot. Anyone who follows politics knows that the
Far
Right doesn't think the rank and file Republicans represent them,
setting
the stage for a splintering of the party.

Which might actually not be a bad idea for the party. The remainder
would probably more palatable to the Great Undecided.

It might have long term good repercussions for a party that's in fairly
serious disarray. I don't think a split would help a weak candidate from
the Republicans win against an incumbent who might be actually pulling out
of AfRaq as promised, when promised. Obama could be a genius by saving the
pullout (and the release of his "long form" birth certificate until just
before the election where they would carry the most weight.

Of course, it's also likely we could be adding North Korea and Iran to the
list of low-intensity conflicts as well by Oct 2012. Who can tell? The
world does what it wants when it wants to. Who knew "Arab Spring" was
coming until it hit us square in the face? What ARE we spending trillions
on intelligence for if they can't foresee events like this? The economy
could also turn around by then, but I won't hold my breath.

Last time the "TV Candidate" was DA Arthur Branch from LawnOrder. Now
we
are asked: President Trump? Maybe the time has come to ask if we're
ready
for a Mormon president.

But at least Fred Thompson had had some experience in politics having
served in the Senate for awhile.

True, that. Well, Trump has some serious business experience. If the US is
going to go bankrupt, Trump's the man with real bankruptcy experience.
Apparently he's learned how to survive them and that could be very, very
useful in case we can't pull out of the deficit nose-dive.

!!! It would be a credit if an *innocent* man had beaten an alleged
"frame"
job. It's not a credit to allow a clearly guilty man to escape because
a
detective once used the N word and foolishly denied it. It should have
merely given doubt to Fuhrman's testimony. There was still plenty of
good
evidence left but the LA DA's office muffed nearly every advantage they
had
in the face of OJ's very effective legal team. It's hard to listen to
some
of the Nicole Brown 911 calls (with OJ screaming death threats like a
maniac) and come away with any sense other than "he's a f*cking stone
cold
killer." But the OJ jury did.

The trial was lost when the DA did not object to the trying on the
glove. Deservedly so, at least from a Karma standpoint, for their
stupidity.

Instead of putting their best people on it, they put a woman and a black man
on the prosecution for appearances' sake. That's when they lost the case
of the century, at least IMHO. Getting "bend over backwards" Ito as the
trial judge sealed the deal. By the time we got to the "if the glove
doesn't fit, you must acquit" phase of the trial, it was all over. The jury
had made up their minds. Part of the problem of high-profile cases (and it
was nakedly apparent in the Spector trial) is that like cops, jurors get
blinded by celebrity. I heard one witness in the Spector trial virtually
say she was expecting a record contract from Spector for helping him out.
The woman was the victim's best friend, allegedly, and she turned on her in
a NY second when she realized that changing her story to help Spector would
help her in the long run.

We just had a "leather glove" thread. What nimlo doesn't know that a
glove
soaked in blood shrinks a size or two? Members of the OJ jury, that's
who!
Remove the possibly tainted evidence and you've still got lots of other
quality evidence, like the Bruno Magli shoes. That sort of evidence
just
couldn't be doctored without a time machine. Fuhrman offers a lot of
interesting insight at (ugh!) Oprah's site:

Heck you don't even need to bring that up. Just putting them on over
latex gloves is idiocy.

Correct. That demonstration was a textbook case in how NOT to do things.
There was enough evidence to convict three or four times over. It was so
badly presented and the prosecution got blind-sided so many times (like
Fuhrman's N bombs) it's no surprise that they failed to convict. Darden and
Clark didn't go very far after that case, IIRC. They were way out of their
league with OJ's attorneys and their level of experience.

--
Bobby G.