Raise your hand if you think OJ was innocent

[Duer 157099]

I keep hearing how the reason we cannot pursue impeachment is because there will not be enough votes to convict (which may or may not be true - hard to be sure until after a hearing and trial) and then Bush will be declared "innocent" somehow.

Well, OJ was not convicted but yet I have not yet met one person who does not think he murdered his wife.

How is this different? At worst, Bush escapes conviction, but his crimes are thoroughly exposed to so many people who currently only have the slightest inkling.

What if the OJ trial had not occurred because the prosecutors thought they could not get a conviction -- do you think that *everyone* currently would know OJ had committed the crime, or would they have continued in their ignorance, having not had been exposed to all of the evidence?

Explain to me how this situation differs, please. It's actually a much more compelling case that must be heard since it affects the whole nation and the world, rather than just a handful of family and friends.

[seemslikeadream]

1. I believe OJ's son did it

he was a chef and owned a wonderful set of knives

[Wizard777]

3. Yep. It was Jason no doubt.

[seemslikeadream]

7. That's why OJ was so confident that he would get off and that the evidence was tainted

btw you are one of a very few people that even know what I am talking about :hi:

[Benhurst]

9. Yeah, I heard some French reporters being interviewed about that

possibility, and they made a very convincing case.

[seemslikeadream]

11. he left work early that night WITH his knives

his very expensive very sharp knives

[Wizard777]

20. He also had a thing for Nicole and a rage disorder.

He was also the first person OJ hired a lawyer for.

[baldguy]

2. OJ didn't have any accomplices on his jury.

[Duer 157099]

5. ...and yet he still walked, so that's not the point

the point is that the public got to hear all of the evidence, regardless of what the jury did.

Now if you had said that the prosecutor and DA were not OJ's accomplices, it would have been a valid parallel...

[dsc]

4. I think he was innocent of what they said he did

but that he was somehow involved with help. Michael Moore, at least a few years ago, believed he was totally innocent. Admittedly that was before the "how I would have killed Nicole if I did" book.

[AlCzervik]

8. i always thought his adult son had something to do with it, why, i don't know.

[King Bacon Fat]

18. That was suggested in a BBC doco a few years back...

Information at the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/954700.stm

[newmajority]

6. OJ was a great man and a brilliant journalist and we shouldn't piss on his grave !!11!!!!!

Oh, wait a minute.... I forgot which GE media whore we were talking about for a second. Sorry.... :blush:

[graywarrior]

19. *snort*

[Duer 157099]

10. OK, I know I shouldn't have to say this but... this thread isn't really about OJ n/t

[Cleita]

12. The prosecution blew the case.

Most trial attorneys concur. He was convicted in civil court because the lawyers were able to present the case as it should have been. Bugliosi is saying that the prosecution can blow any criminal action against Bush if they don't do it right.

[Duer 157099]

13. Even so, the general public still believes he is guilty

and that's what I'm saying about the impeachment parallel, that exposing the crimes to the public is the whole point, regardless of conviction.

[Riddler]

16. But in the civil case, guilt didn't have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt either.

[Cleita]

17. Yes, but I read a legal opinion somewhere that if the prosecution had

presented the case as it was in the civil case they would have one. But it's pretty much speculation at this point. Who knows who is right.

[Gman]

14. The Man framed OJ

that's how it is.

[elocs]

15. OJ was found to be "not guilty"---not "innocent". There is a difference.

You are kidding yourself if you do not believe there are prosecutors who would not indict somebody if they did not think they could not get a conviction--and they do not even know the jury. How many were thrilled to death that OJ was put on trial, but not convicted? With Bush, you could impeach him until the cows come home, but he would not be convicted any more than Clinton was because this would be a very partisan process, especially during an election year.

Impeachment was all the rage last year, but people apparently got over it until recently when Kucinich filed articles of impeachment. But why didn't he do it earlier in the Spring during the primaries when it would have gotten more attention and there would have been more time? Why didn't he do it last winter or fall for the same reason? Why was it so imperative to do it right now when the clock has wound down so far? Had articles of impeachment been introduced and passed last January or February hearing might still be going on now with a trial in the Senate immanent. It is so late now that as remote as the possibility may be, nothing more is likely to happen than to have Kucinch introduce more and more articles of impeachment and get lots of attention here for doing it.