The Trump verdict was manifestly unjust, for two "passive" reasons and one active one.
The first "passive" reason is that this president should never face a jury trial in a place like New York City, where the population has been weaponized against him. Purely on a statistical basis, only about 1/4 of the residents would be inclined to support him, and most of them would only do so if no one else could find out.
The second "passive" reason is that this is the kind of case that never should be brought against anyone, because it is decades old and there is no direct contemporaneous evidence. It's just her word against his, and he's unpopular and an obvious political target.
But the third -- and "active" -- reason is perhaps the most disturbing: the judge (a Bill Clinton appointee, no axe to grind there!) -- allowed character evidence into the trial. He allowed two women who claimed to be victims of Trump (no proof, or court judgment) to testify that Trump might have done what this plaintiff said because it's similar to what they, non-plaintiffs, had experienced. He even allowed the "Access Hollywood" tape to be played, as if Trump's rude speech was evidence that he lived down to his words in this specific instance. This type of evidence is highly prejudicial and is not supposed to be introduced outside of specific circumstances.
Based on how the judge ruled here on the evidence, anyone who can claim to have met Trump at a party can sue him for assault because even though they might not have any other evidence, the "Access Hollywood" tape shows a propensity to commit assault in general.
This is a miscarriage of justice, underlined by the fact that the jury lacked the audacity to find him liable for rape (on a weak, civil standard) but somehow found him liable for assault and defamation for defending himself. They knew it was their civic duty to hurt him and they did not want to be accused of shaming his accuser.
The verdict should be overturned. But it will limit Trump's appeal beyond his base -- which will support him now, more than ever. The justice system, meanwhile, is being damaged almost beyond repair.
This is my first broadcast from the new office and studio in Washington, DC, where I'll be for a couple of years my neighborhood back in L.A. cleans up -- and as we follow the Trump administration from a little closer up than usual.
Topics:
And more!
Special guests:
Tune in: 7-10 p.m. ET, 4-7 p.m. PT
Call: 866-957-2874
This week’s portion tells the grand story of the prophet who tried to curse people of Israel and instead ended up blessing them.
I am reminded that these portions continue to be relevant anew, as this particular reading lent the title for Israel’s recent 12 Day War against Iran, “Operation Rising Lion.”
This week's portion includes the commandment of the red heifer -- one of the classic "irrational" commandments whose fulfillment is an expression of faith. It also includes the regrettable episode in which Moses strikes the rock.
I referred to this story in a wedding speech last night. Why was Moses punished for striking the rock in Numbers, when he struck the rock without incident in Exodus -- both for the purpose of providing water to the people?
The answer is that in the interim, the Jewish people had received the Torah, which is like the marriage contract between the people of Israel and God. In a marriage, you do not resolve things by breaking boundaries, but through love.
The additional reading, from Judges Chapter 11, is the story of Jephthah (Yiftach), a man whom the leaders spurn, but to whom they must turn to save the nation. The parallels to our present political circumstances are striking.
Shabbat Shalom and Happy Fourth of July!
...