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 week's show will be slightly different from the norm: we'll focus on clips and topics, rather than guests -- and that, hopefully, will mean more input from the callers (unless you are all watching football on opening weekend).
Topics:
- The state of the economy
- The fight against crime
- The midterm election fight
- The struggle for peace between Russia and Ukraine
- The airstrike on the Venezuelan drug cartel
- The attempt to sink Kennedy
- The war in Gaza
- The case against Harvard
- The Trump presidency
Tune in: SiriusXM Patriot 125, 7-10 p.m. ET / 4-7 p.m. PT
Call: 866-957-2874
This week's Torah portion includes several laws about conduct in civic and personal life, the common theme of which is boundaries -- setting bounds to what one may do at home, at work, and even in the battlefield.
One noteworthy passage concerns Amalek, the evil nation that attacked the Children of Israel as they made their Exodus from slavery to freedom. Deuteronomy 25:17-19 commands Jews to obliterate Amalek's memory.
The South African government accused Israel of genocide on the basis of a story about Amalek in the Book of Samuel, in which King Saul was commanded to wipe out the entire evil Amalekite nation.
Because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quoted this week's portion -- "Remember what Amalek did to you" (25:17), the South African government claimed he was commanding soldiers to commit genocide.
It was an absurd and malevolent misreading of the Bible and of Jewish tradition. The commandment, as observed by Jews today, is to remember the evil of Amalek and fight ...
