DO OBAMA AND HOLDER WANT A MISTRIAL OR AN ACQUITTAL?

ALWAYS ON WATCH: Setting The Stage For A Mistrial Or An Acquittal?

Note to family and friends: Updates on Mr. AOW are now being added to this post.

(With a hat tip to Texas Fred)

According to this article:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed as Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed: "Failure is not an option."

Texas Fred comments:

Khalid will be represented by the best we have to offer, and WE, the U.S. taxpayers, will be the ones paying for it. And don’t think for one minute that this story will not be used as a part of the defense. “U.S. President suggests GUILT of my client your Honor, and the President has influenced and tainted the opinions of ALL possible jurors!”. I would bet on it. In fact, I would be shocked if a defense attorney didn’t use that as an opening gambit to try and get ALL charges dropped and have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and his cronies, freed.

[...]

If ever there was a time in U.S. history where the true allegiance of the POTUS could be brought into question, this is it....

Read the rest of Texas Fred's post HERE.

Both BHO and Holder are lawyers. Surely they realize the possible legal consequences of their statements!

So, why are BHO and Holder issuing such statements?

To reassure the American people that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted even as more and more Americans voice disapproval of a civil trial for the 9/11 terrorist?

Or is there some other reason for the statements of presumed guilt and conviction, a dangerous combination pre-trial?

When I first heard of BHO's and Holder's statements, this information about Charles Manson's trial sprang to my mind:

On August 4, despite precautions taken by the court, Manson flashed the jury a Los Angeles Times front page whose headline was "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares," a reference to a statement made the previous day when U.S. President Richard Nixon had decried what he saw as the media's glamorization of Manson. Voir dired by Judge Charles Older, the jurors contended that the headline had not influenced them. The next day, the female defendants stood up and said in unison that, in light of Nixon's remark, there was no point in going on with the trial. On October 5, after being denied the court's permission to question a prosecution witness whom the defense attorneys had declined to cross-examine, Manson leaped over the defense table and attempted to attack the judge. Wrestled to the ground by bailiffs, he was removed from the courtroom with the female defendants, who had subsequently risen and begun chanting in Latin. Thereafter, Older allegedly began wearing a revolver under his robes.

Yes, Charles Manson and his murderous cohorts were still convicted. But that time in American history wasn't as poisoned by political correctness and mea culpas as today in the Twenty-first Century.

I again pose the question: Why are BHO and Holder issuing such statments in advance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial?

posted by Always On Watch