In 1995, I was stuck at home recuperating from surgery during the infamous OJ Simpson murder trial. One local station broadcast live feed coverage from the courtroom all day every day for the entire trial. I literally watched more of the trial than Judge Ito (who had to recuse himself one week.)
The entire country was riveted. The prosecution put on a devastating case, going through every bit of evidence in minute detail. Meanwhile, OJ’s lawyer’s entire (incredibly weak) defense was “you can’t trust the cops. They have it in for our client.”
The entire country was also extremely divided. All of OJ’s actions were that of a guilty man. The evidence was incontrovertible. OJ had no alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder. His blood was found at the murder scene as well as inside his home and locked car.
Despite the evidence, millions believed beyond all reason that OJ had been framed. They simply did not trust the police. OJ’s only defense was to put the cops themselves on trial. And the rest (as they say) was history. Despite a solid case and “mountain of evidence” against him, and OJ having no alibi, they were still able to convince an empathetic jury that they just could not trust the prosecution enough to vote “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The nation was divided, and no matter which side won, half the country was going to be outraged. Today, most people (even many who supported OJ back then) believe he got away with murder.
For those of you not old enough to remember The OJ Trial, we are witnessing the same thing all over again with the impeachment of Donald J Trump. The same spectacle. A nation divided between those who trust the evidence perfectly in line with Trump’s known pattern of behavior, and a mistrusting minority who are desperate to overlook all facts & evidence to believe the accused is the victim of a massive conspiracy. A mountain of evidence against the accused, prosecutors have built an incontrovertible air-tight case that any unbiased rational observer should be able to see proves Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump himself has confessed, calling his act “the perfect phone call” (whatever that means) and arguing he had the absolute right to withhold military aid from an ally out of “concern over corruption” despite having never done so before to another country. (And also… I like to point out… once again trying to exonerate Russia... a nation they are actively at war with and for which that aid was intended to help them defend against... in yet another attempt to lift sanctions on them.)
Like most spoiled children, rather than admit his mistake, Trump doubled down, defiantly committing the same egregious act a second time asking yet another country (China) from the White House lawn to commit the same act he would eventually be impeached for (ie: asking another country to meddle in our election by opening an investigation into a political rival.) In mid-trial, Trump even “brags” that the prosecution will never have all the evidence it needs to prosecute him for Obstruction of Justice because he’s withholding evidence of his obstruction from them.
Meanwhile, Trump’s defense is absurdly weak, if not outright ridiculous. Not a single witness can testify on his behalf. Members of his own White House whom one might expect would be able to defend him, have been forbidden from testifying, with Trump claiming with a straight face he’s only doing so “to protect future presidencies [from Congressional overreach]” (the same excuse he gave for refusing to release his taxes.)
But enough members of the “jury” are sympathetic to the defendant, arguing the prosecution is untrustworthy and the evidence doesn’t prove anything. His lawyers, lacking a credible defense, are putting the prosecutors themselves on trial. And (mark my words) their defense ultimately will be to sow just enough doubt to say, “If you have ANY doubt that maybe… just maybe… Trump (who paid millions in fines for running a fraudulent “university” and defrauding his own charity) really was genuinely concerned about ‘corruption’ in Ukraine (despite no such concern in prior years OR concern of corruption in ANY other country.) “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
The two trials even have a “Bacon number” of 1: One of the advisors on the OJ case, famed attorney Alan Dershowitz is now advising the Trump defense. Dershowitz defended the OJ jury’s decision to acquit his client on the grounds the prosecution had failed to overcome “reasonable doubt”… which was not true. The defense simply raised the bar on “reasonable” to an impossibly high standard.
And that’s the way this will end. We are witnessing the OJ Trial all over again.