Replies

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