Will Hillary Be The New OJ?

Thoughts from Roger Simon:

Hillary is much better protected. She doesn’t need Johnny Cochran or the rest of the “Dream Team.” She’s got something even more powerful than low-rent appeals to racism and phony charades about gloves that are somehow too small. She’s got the president of the United States and the mainstream media in her corner. Working together, as they so often do, they have the ability to pervert justice, as we used to say, nine ways to Brooklyn. With their help, the chances of an indictment are slim, of a trial even thinner.

Were there to be a trial, however, and even if there weren’t, the real defendants would be the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. They disappear if Hillary gets off — as does our country as we know it. I have written this before, but I can’t write it too many times. It’s that serious.

But in fairness to the other side — you are concerned about “fairness,” aren’t you — I will offer Hillary’s esteemed attorney David Kendall a properly mendacious catch phrase à la Cochran with which to wrap his summation dramatically: “If the emails are merely suspect, you must elect.”

I know it’s not as pithy — doesn’t have quite that certain je ne sais quoi — as “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” (Readers may have better suggestions.) But it should work under the circumstances.

And Ron Fournier seems to think (for some reason he has difficulty explaining) that presidential candidates should get special dispensation. I wonder if the political party matters in hat formulation?

Amazing.

[Update a few minutes later]

This seems related, somehow: Clinton superdelegate disbarred while awaiting prison. Funny how that sort of thing happens to so many people associated with the Clintons.

[Update a while later]

Hillary’s delusional media courtiers.

3 thoughts on “Will Hillary Be The New OJ?”

  1. Sexist!!! She’s a woman. You can’t attack her until she becomes a republican and therefore not a woman.

  2. No.
    It could be an interesting trial if it were to happen. But discussing it won’t cause racist flareups even 20 years later.

    And on Ron’s point.
    Anyone accepting or seeking political or governmental authority should be under “triple damages/penalties” as far as I’m concerned. Not -reduced- scrutiny. It would require an amendment.

    It would be a very strong incentive for “necessary functions” to form as -independent-.

Comments are closed.