The Trial Of The Century?

I concur with Cassandra’s bottom line assessment of the O.J. Simpson case, He Did It. But there’s more to it than that: I’ve long viewed the Simpson murder investigation and subsequent trial as a cautionary tale in how NOT to handle a high profile case. To jog my memory, I revisited two episodes of the great ESPN documentary, O.J.: Made In America.

Before killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, The Juice had juice with LAPD. That’s why the investigation was so deferential at the beginning. That deference led to many mistakes; among them sloppy collection of evidence at both the crime scene and Simpson’s mansion in nearly all-white Brentwood.

The prosecution compounded LAPD’s errors with their own fuck ups: from jury selection to presentation the District Attorney’s office made a winning case a loser. Marcia Clark, Chris Darden, and company were out lawyered by the so-called Dream Team, especially Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck.

The Simpson case was called The Trial Of The Century. It should have been called The Clusterfuck Of The Century. Freak shows are usually clusterfucks and vice versa.

That brings me to today’s opening of the Trump porn star hush money case. Anything involving Donald Trump is a freak show with clusterfuck potential. The Los Angeles Times actually conflated Simpson and Trump in its original obit for the sports hero turned pariah. I am not making this up.

Speaking of conflation, the Kaiser of Chaos has difficulty telling the difference between notoriety and fame; all publicity is good as far as this stupid mook is concerned. Trump actually wanted to put O.J. Simpson on The Celebrity Apprentice according to a 2008 interview with Howard Stern:

“I do have to tell you about O.J. and ‘The Apprentice,’” Trump said, per CNN. “NBC went totally crazy when I wanted to put O.J. on ‘The Apprentice.’”

“Why would you put him on The Apprentice?” Stern asked.

“Well, you know, in your business, there’s a thing called ratings,” Trump replied.

“I know this: If I put O.J. on, huge ratings,” Trump continued.

“You’ll have the biggest season ever,” Stern interjected.

“Oh, forget it, 35 million people,” Trump continued. “O.J. would have done it.”

Trump balked at answering when Stern asked him if he spoke to Simpson about the gig.

“I hadn’t spoken to him in years. I don’t like people that kill their wives,” Trump said, per Mediaite. “Does that make sense? Does that make me a disloyal person?”

I guess we should be glad that Trump doesn’t approve of spousal homicide but his thoughts on disloyalty are chillingly amoral as well as hilarious. Loyalty is a one way street for Trump: just ask former fixer Michael Cohen.

The shallow friendship between O.J. and the Donald is only one reason I’m doing the old compare and contrast between the two cases. O.J. Simpson was the most famous person ever tried for murder in our country. Donald Trump is the first POTUS to be tried for anything. The facts of this case are nearly as sordid as those of the Simpson case.

Presumably, the Manhattan DA’s office will not make the same mistakes made by the Simpson prosecutors. They overcomplicated that case, which made reasonable doubt reasonable in what should have been an open and shut case. It’s always best to keep it simple, especially on a high profile case.

The facts of the Simpson case were simple: enraged ex-husband kills ex-wife after NOT being invited to dinner after a child’s event. Goldman was  in the wrong place at the wrong time: collateral damage. How simple is that?

The facts are equally simple in the Trump porn star hush money case. It was a cover up that interfered with the 2016 election. Stormy Daniels got in the way of Trump’s political ambitions and had to be silenced. How simple is that?

Cover ups have a way of unravelling and that’s what happened in this case. I’m not a conspiracy theory buff because of the sample principle: conspiracies have a way of unraveling, especially when too many people are involved. The JFK assassination conspiracies posited by the buffs always involve a cast of dozens or even thousands. In a word: Overcomplicated.

It’s unfortunate that the porn star hush money case is going first. Not the significance of the offense but the fact that it offers Trump’s best chance at an acquittal. The purloined papers case would have been the best lead-off trial, but Judge Cannon’s biased incompetence has made that impossible.

The Omar Little maxim is in force as the trial progresses:

I’ll be covering the trial but not in exhaustive detail. Unlike the Simpson trial, it won’t be televised but reporters will be allowed to post about it on social media.

Jury selection could last for up to three weeks. I covered Voir Dire in my 42 Questions post last week. It’s gonna take time and Trump’s lawyers will drag it out like they drag everything out. As with everyone else, Trump brings out the worst in his lawyers.

I’ll be following Lisa Rubin of MSNBC’s courtroom coverage on the platform formerly known as Twitter. Rubin is a lapsed lawyer. Her pre-game analysis of the porn star hush money case has been clear headed, unsensational, and spot on. Get ready for egregious lies from Trump and his followers about the progress of the trial. It’s what they do.

Here’s hoping this will be the first of four Trump criminal trials and that it won’t be a clusterfuck; a freak show is inevitable. Donald Trump is the only freak ever elected president. What else can you call an Insult Comedian with a dead nutria pelt atop his head?

Repeat after me: Convict the crook, it’s important.

The last word goes to Pink Floyd:

4 thoughts on “The Trial Of The Century?

  1. I don’t necessarily disagree that Trump’s lawyers will try to drag this out, but I don’t understand why they would do so. I get delaying the start of the trial, but now that it is underway it seems like it is in his best interest to get it over with as quickly as possible. It will most certainly be done before the election, obviously, so how does it help him to have it be, say 8 weeks, vs 6 weeks?

    1. Trump is running the defense, so logic has nothing to do with it.

      1. Oh, I see. You are applying the Occam’s Razor thing. And I do not disagree.

Comments are closed.