Trump Found Liable of Sexual Assault and Defamation

There are lots of people who voted for Donald Trump for well-considered reasons, and maligning these Republican voters does Christianity no favors.

The author of The Nones used the last chapter largely to consider a path for Christians to appeal to the category of unaffiliated persons discussed in the book. He noted part of the problem was the strong political stances of certain churches. The increase of politicization in evangelical churches drove away many Christians. Black Protestants are a whole separate group for statistical purposes largely since social and political realities led them to be.

Ryan Burge (the author) discusses how there is a chicken-and-egg quality to religion and politics. People often are attracted to certain religions because they already match their politics.  This can lead to difficulties, especially if more efforts are not done to appeal to a wide range of people. 

There is nothing new about this as we see with the Black Protestants.  At the beginning of our nation, certain religious groups leaned Federalist, others (especially Baptists), Democratic-Republican.  Are you going to be likely to vote Democrat these days (unless you have a strong reason to do so) if your church is strongly against abortion or gay rights?  

Religion is supposedly about fellowship, not politics.  But, at some point, the opening quote is dubious.  

“I’d rather have a president that isn’t found liable for battery,” Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican, told reporters, but “it’s not a disqualifier.” 

The book was written in 2021.  After the insurrection though 2016 had lots of fodder already.  The #MeToo movement was greatly inspired by (so to speak) Donald Trump (Harvey Weinstein was also a major driver).  It led E. Jean Carroll to write about being sexually assaulted (she called it rape) by Donald Trump years earlier.  He denied even knowing her or her being his type, even though he mistook a picture of her to be his second wife.  

I apologize Rev. Cramer (he is a minister of the American Baptist Church, a more middle-of-the-road branch of Baptists), but what should I think about the senator of North Dakota here?  The quote is after Trump was found liable for sexual assault (the federal jury -- she's in NY, he in Florida, so it's a diversity case -- had to be unanimous; they held rape was not proven*) and defamation?  

I think Christians as much as anyone else can "malign" the decision at this point to vote for Trump.  How about Rep. George "that's my name now" Santos?  In one of the least surprising moves ever:

Santos stands accused of deceiving prospective donors to his campaign and defrauding the state of New York, as well as making false statements to the House Committee on Ethics. He faces seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of lying to the House of Representatives on financial forms.

(I grant that when news came out that he was indicted, I didn't realize it would come so soon.)  

Prof. Eric Segall recently appealed for more interaction between conservative and liberal groups.  "We have to learn how to talk to each other better." It's hard, professor, when one side supports a racist, insurrectionist predator in order to get more judges. Segall is very emotional about the Federalist Society leading name Leonard Leo.  He's not nice about talking about him.  

But, it's as if he stands alone. Segall last year or so refused to even join other law professors who drew a line at what they saw as more ideological Federalist events while debating members in some quarters.  He's not willing even to do that, in part because he claims his voice (a major one for decades, including as an author) is but a drop in the ocean.

I'm sorry. That in a fashion helps normalize them.  Would you debate ideas at a blatantly racist organization?  I think not.  Some lines need to be drawn here. A bunch of Republican senators refused to admit this was disqualifying.  Sen. Graham badmouthed the New York legal system.  Sen. Tuberville said the verdict made him want to support Trump more.

Yes, I'm going to "malign" that sort of thing. It's disgusting and shameful.  This does not mean we should not respect the needs of those who share harmful views.  A close relative has horrible views about various things from watching Fox News and more.  She's a good person in many ways.  But, I choose not to talk to her about politics since I care too much about the issues to merely academically talk about them as she parrots talking points. 

Relatives are sometimes hard to avoid though (see that Judy Blume book) sadly (and sometimes healthfully) it can lead to shunning and staying away.  Other groups are not in the same category.  

At some point, there is a bare minimum required to associate with people and to politely engage with them when you do not have to do so.  Lines have to be drawn. At the very least, yes, you are not just going to soft-soap bad actions. That is surely not the path found in the Bible.  Did the prophets do that?  Pointlessly being cruel and vindictive (though it's okay to have some places online to vent ... to some degree) is different here.

Anyway, the verdict is a small but special moment of some bit of justice against someone who spent his whole life avoiding it.  The particular lawsuit was possible because New York extended the statute of limitations for some sexual abuse litigation.  As the op-ed noted, we have moved forward as a nation to the degree that Gov. Hochul signed it into law since Cuomo's wrongdoings of sexual nature were such to pressure him to resign.

I was somewhat wary about long-ago events being subject to civil liability, especially when memories and so on are inexact.  Nonetheless, it is a matter of degree. The level of evidence against Trump is high with around twenty women accusing him of abuse.  And, he basically put on no case here, making it easier for the jury to find him liable, even when one or more of them lean conservative, and they split 6-3, male/female.

(I was not aware that unanimous votes are necessary here since that is not always the case in a civil trial.  There were nine jurors instead of the twelve needed for a federal criminal jury.)  

As with the Supreme Court's ethical problems (and more), it is aggravating (and dispairing) so little comeuppance is coming, but perhaps 2023 will be a new beginning here for Donald Trump. 

---

* For some, it seems outrageous and/or ridiculous for him to be found liable for sexual battery but not rape. 

I have not deep-dived it.  But, I saw one liberal-leaning sort referencing her allegation of Trump "fingering"  (sorry) her.  It is quite possible that one or more jurors (again, unanimous jury required) thought the evidence presented did not amount to the legal definition of "rape."  

This is often the case in sexual assault cases, which like a range of other serious felonies (or civil wrongs) come in degrees.  

And, yes, it might be a "compromise" verdict that "splits the difference" in a way that is not legally sound in all respects.  This would be common ground in multimember units like this, including judicial panels.  This is how the law operates.