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.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
