NATIONAL SERVICE

 We have been here before

CAN WE HANDLE THE TRUTH ?

In his current trial in New York, Donald Trump has clearly been convicted by various sections of the media, in particular MSNBC by various pundits. Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Ari Melber and others.  There has been a plethora of ‘forensic’ examinations of the prosecution evidence. Tape recordings and paper exhibits explained in great detail. I do not know whether the members of the jury, whose decision is the only one that matters, have access to any of these broadcasts or publications, but if they have, it could be cause for concern.

Despite all this, from what I have been able to glean, the question is, does all this stuff add up nothing more than Mr Trump paying legal bills in the ordinary course of business, or can one infer from all the activity, a criminal conspiracy? It will all depend on whether the jury are prepared to give Mr Trump the benefit of the doubt. Will they believe him, or whatever witnesses his defence team may call, that he was just paying for legal services?

 

As to the members of the jury believing Mr Trump, sadly, the real test is whether or not they believe him when he so loudly proclaims he never had sex with Ms Daniels. The problem he faces is that if they think he has lied about that, they will be less willing to believe him about anything else.  That’s only human nature. A man who has bragged about his fame and ability to have any woman he wants, does not have the best credentials to persuade a New York Manhattan jury.

 

In addition, it is highly unlikely that Mr Trump will give evidence on oath and subject himself to cross examination. If he doesn’t, then the Jury will most certainly think “Why not?”. If he does (and I’m sure his lawyers are terrified he will) then a careful and extended cross examination will surely reveal his character. If he reacts to questions that he feels impugn him or are contrary to his thinking, he may resort to insult and verbal abuse as he does when questioned by the press he hates. His childish and neolithic bravura will come out. His psychotic narcissism will be exposed. The scene might not be quite as dramatic as Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of Col. Nathan R. Jessep in A Few Good Men, but will be just as telling. The equivalent of shouting out “You’re God damned right I did!”

 

Indeed, given the verdict in the lawsuits brought against him by Ms E. Jean Carroll, despite his denials and his video defence, the unanimous jury clearly did not believe him. So, as far as the present members of the jury are concerned, there is precedent relating to his sexual conduct and denials.

 

In any event we will no doubt soon find out just who can handle the truth or not, as the case may be. He will either get away with it again, or finally be brought to book. If he does get away with it, we will all have to handle it.

LET RIGHT BE DONE

A correction must be made to the information about University of Chicago Law School. At the time of my visit in February of 1965, Chicago was the premier Law School in the United States. When I mentioned the list, I should have specified Stanford and Yale were tied for 1^st place, Chicago 3^rd followed by Duke and Harvard tied for 4^th place. Chicago, however, so far as I am aware, has, for a long time, been above Harvard in the rankings of Law Schools. It would appear that Harvard has had better press.

 

The ratings of Law Schools in the United States is a rather mixed bag. It would seem that two schools ranked number 1 for Trial Advocacy are Temple University (Beasley) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ranked 54 the overall) and Stetson University, Gulfport, Florida (ranked 98^th overall).

 

Speaking of standings and ranks, Todd Blanche is the lawyer defending Mr Trump in his current case in New York. Mr Blanche attended the Brooklyn Law School in New York which is ranked at number 114 of best law schools and at number 52 in trial advocacy. It is curious that Mr Trump is seeking a second term in the White House which is Maison Blanche. Let us hope the only invitation he gets to Maison Blanche is Todd’s apartment for supper. Todd, by the way, would appear not to be doing too well with the judge. Ho Hum.

 

Trump’s asides to camera as he goes in and out of court show an extraordinary petulance that one would have thought people grew out of. His infantile outbursts and language reinforce the view that he has never quite grown up. Perhaps his narcissism and peevishness speak more of infantile behaviour and retarded development than psychosis?  He has limited vocabulary and his humour is of the playground. He has the sticks and stones persona or the schoolyard bully.

 

It is something that makes me ponder. I heard an interview this morning on Radio 4.s program Life Changing between Dr Sian Williams and Tier Blundell. The blurb reads:

 

Tier Blundell was never a bad kid, he was bright and curious but also disruptive. He grew up sandwiched between two cultures and felt excluded from society. Those feelings were amplified when aged 11 Tier was informed by his school that he wouldn’t be welcome back following the summer holidays and was instead sent to a Pupil Referral Unit. He left there with no qualifications and a sense of shame, until the day he puts on a suit, turns up for an unscheduled meeting and demands another go at education —

 

During his childhood he probably exhibited symptoms of ADHD and hyperactivity. He was mixed race and suffered racist abuse and wad generally regarded as a trouble maker. As a child he keenly felt a strong sense of injustice at his lot and the resultant frustration caused his outbursts of violence, theft and disruptive behaviour. After leaving the Referral Unit he had a variety of jobs, as a bouncer and also got into cage fighting.

 

When he was 24, after a difficult childhood he was without qualification he put on a suit and went to a college, with no appointment, and spoke to someone about getting back into education. He was accepted. From that time on he never looked back and set about learning how to learn and how to educate himself getting a degree from Warwick University and now being a DPhil student at Lincoln College, Oxford University.  

 

Hearing him talk about his early school years between 5 and11 and the referral unit till 15/16 it was clear that, like most children, his resentment resulted from feelings of isolation and being the boy to blame. A lot of stuff was put on him, that had nothing to do with him, but he was the bad boy. That feeling of injustice, of being hard done by, and the need for some retribution or revenge to compensate for his grievances was what led to the attitude and antisocial conduct. He may not have realised it at the time, but listening to him speak now, about his feelings at the time stuck a chord.

 

I believe from a very early age people have a strong sense of what should be right. It’s like learning a language. It’s part of how we speak. Growing up we navigate the world using that sense of what is just and how we relate with others. The simplicity of right and wrong is no accident. It is that sense of equity that has driven the establishment of the rule of law. I am a firm believer in that rule. How often have we heard a child left out of something call out “That’s not fair” and having to explain why some things might not be fair, or having to explain that they had already had their share and to give someone else a chance. Indeed the child might be operating on an untruth and need to be taught their mistake and how to accept it. That is what growing up is all about, learning what is true, what is right and what is wrong. Some people do not seem to adjust. which is why we have vendettas and wars.

 

Real injustice or behaviour perceived as injustice can cause deep resentment. When that sense injustice, real or imagined, manifest itself in violence. The victims of that action, so far as humanity is concerned, is entitled to defend him or herself, or react in such a way as to reflect an appropriate response or find some means of rectifying or compensating the hurt. Too often it leads to an acceleration of the violence. Rules therefore have been set up by individuals societies to enable them to interact in peace. The rights and equities between parties is set down. Call it the rule of law, human rights, or simply good manners, whatever, it is vitally important to keep the peace.  

 

I am sure this is something we have built into our brains and just as we learn language we learn what is right. If our learning is impaired through bad education or teaching, or we are educationally challenged, then there is no growth and no real understanding of equity and justice.

 

Mr Trump is just such a retard. His infantilism has been pandered to his whole life, leaving him ill-equipped to deal with anything that does not suit him and he expresses disdain and insult, like a child feeling it hasn’t got its own way. No one seems able to explain it to him like he’s a six year old, because he is a six year old unwilling to listen. He has not got beyond the mirror stage in life. All he sees is himself. End of. Those who adore and pander to him are indeed the same. They all play in the same sand box, only Trump is on top of the slide. They have no idea of what will happen when he comes crashing down on top of them. Unfortunately it might spill over on to the rest of us, and this is the man to whom a so called Supreme Court is contemplating giving total immunity.  What world are we lining in? As Joan Rivers often said “We have to talk. GROW UP !!’

 

A little something extra that perhaps the promoters of the Rwanda policy might ponder.  A bit racist in tone, but it fits the bill of,  Let Right be Done.

 

Fiat Justitia ruat caelum. Meaning “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”. The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences. It was cited in the case of Somerset -v- Stewart from 1772 98ER499. The judgement of the English Court of King’s Bench relating to the right of an enslaved person on English Soil not to be forcibly removed from the country and sent to Jamaica for sale.

 

According to one reported version of the case, Lord Mansfield decided that:

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral of political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England, and therefore the black must be discharged.