Since the state is prosecuting him, whatever the president says has no direct bearing.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As an evidentiary issue it does indeed. For example, when challenging candidates for the jury, the questions of media exposure to the presidents speech and the follow up propaganda could most certainly be asked.
I agree with you on the issue of moving for dismissal as a procedural matter on those grounds. But it would be most interesting if no jurors could be found who were not prejudiced by the presidents propaganda initiative on the case and its skewing prejudgement of fact, the duty of the jury is to decide them.This also violates the whole issue of the presumption of innocence. It is the greatest weakness created by HOW fascism works.
We do have many preliminary procedures which can indeed
lead any reasonable person to conclude that this is a political show trial, such as the voir dire process on pre-examining witnesses. This would lay the ground for victory on appeal , which might be necessary in this case.
Too bad F. Lee Baily was not alive and in his hey day.Alan Dershowitz would be great as co-counsel with Moran.He has already published several arguments about the preliminary filings of the “special” ( political) prosecutor.
This case reminds me of the Dreyfus case and its role in the history of French fascism, and its subsequent Vichy government.I believe that Florida’s government is essentially very much like that Vichy government in its conduct concerning this case.They have been so easily cowed by the Obama fascist movement, displaying the underwhelming discipline of a collection of syphlitic bashi-bazouks, bent on nothing more than self interested political plunder.It places the administration of justice into disrepute, not having a grand jury hear issue of indictment, for example.
They themselves have acted like little fascists.
Good Read:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
It would be funnier if no jurors could be found that had heard 0blabbermouth’s demagoguery. That it turns out that more people than ever are turning him off or tuning him out.
“when challenging candidates for the jury, the questions of media exposure to the presidents speech and the follow up propaganda could most certainly be asked”
It was a few comments after being directly asked about it, not a speech; unless you’re talking about some speech with which I’m unfamiliar. That being said, well, yeah, Obama could taint potential jury members, but that’s a very weak and indirect way for Obama to violate due process. It would be based less on his authority as a government figure than his being a celebrity. Though, of course, he is a celebrity because he’s a government figure.
But I really do think his violating due process would have to come from him intefering in an official capacity, not from casual comments at a press conference. Which comments, by the way, fell far short of “String Zimmerman up!” You might as well charge Spike Lee, or the entire MSM for that matter, with violation of due process according to that logic.
“the presidents propaganda initiative on the case”
I disagree with this characterization. Look, the president is a lot of things, politically almost all of them bad. But he did not carry out a propaganda initiative against Zimmerman. Perhaps Democrat operatives did, less likely administration officials in official capacity did. If they did so, I’m not aware of it. If it happened, it probably would have been part of drumming up a federal case of some sort against him, rather than an attempt to influence state criminal procedings.
If they did influence state procedures, it was behind the scenes and therefore not propaganda.
“This also violates the whole issue of the presumption of innocence. It is the greatest weakness created by HOW fascism works.”
It would be the most subtle form of fascism I’ve ever seen. What I think’s going on here is that you’re mistaking the whole big propaganda job by the MSM against Zimmerman with the eensy weensy little sliver of participation in it by Obama. He evinced pro-Martin/anti-Zimmerman sympathy, but it hardly consisted of an insurmountable prejudicing of the potential jury pool.
I happen to believe presidents shouldn’t comment on ongoing cases, even casually. But them doing so does not erase the possibility of avoiding a show trial. Arguing otherwise is frankly in the realm of wild conspiracy theorizing.
“which can indeed lead any reasonable person to conclude that this is a political show trial”
If it’s a show trial, it is at the state level. As for Obama’s connection, every potential jury member interviewed, when asked if they’ve seen any news coverage of the case, may respond, “Yes, the president says he’s guilty, and therefore I say bring on the chair!” In that case, yes, it would be Obama’s show trial. But that won’t happen. At most, the president’s comments will be one of many, many news pieces influencing them.
“This case reminds me of the Dreyfus case”
I can see similarities, especially in the drastic overcharge. I’d be less likely to say it was an out and out set-up had Zimmerman been charged with manslaughter. It’s certainly set the ideologues against eachother. But, again, it is not a federal case, and therefore less resembles Dreyfus. At most it’s Florida’s Dreyfus.