Voices Against Criminal Justice Reform

Allow me to second the editorial stance of the NYTimes (November 18), calling for implementation of criminal justice reform in NY and chastising the naysayers.
As long ago as 1961, the Vera Foundation’s Manhattan Bail Project, in which I participated as a law student, demonstrated that accused individuals released without bail were more likely to return to court and less likely to commit new crimes than those released on bail.
As a Criminal Court judge, I made broad use of release without bail as the more just alternative to unnecessary and often lengthy incarceration of persons accused but not convicted of crimes. My experience mirrored the findings of the Vera Foundation; released individuals returned for their court dates with greater reliability than those released on bail.

Far Right Frenzy

As the evidence of Donald Trump’s corruption, abuse of power and obstruction mounts, yet another of his former lieutenants joins the ranks of convicted felons (making six at last count) and more public officials courageously come forward to bear witness, the far right has grown frantic exploding in paroxysms of vitriol, falsehood and incitement.
Sean Hannity of Fox now rages nightly, engaging in name calling and vilification of Democrats, nonpartisan public servants, congressional witnesses, the media mob, Deep Staters, Never Trumpers, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Hannity so often repeats his  Big Lies they have been transformed into a litany tinged with religious fervor as he exhorts his viewers to exhibit anger and disgust.
Now, he has sent letters to every Republican senator demanding that these potential impeachment “jurors “ respond to questions calculated to elicit a pretrial pronouncement of their verdict. More troubling, a number of these senators, including Majority Leader McConnell, promptly responded giving the sought assurances.

The Disorienting Defense of Mr. Trump

Focus for a moment on the defense that Mr. Trump cannot receive a fair hearing unless the whistle-blower is identified and compelled to testify. Suppose an anonymous person calls 911 to report a crime in progress. The police respond and catch a wrongdoer in the act and arrest him. Applying Republican logic, the charge must be dismissed and the criminal released unless the police can, somehow, find the caller and make him available as a witness for the defense so he can be questioned  about whether he made up the story because he disliked the defendant. Mr. Trump's other "defenses" are equally plausible.

Fox News Coverage of Trump Political Rallies

Tonight, after a day of multiple major news stories, all of them bad for Donald Trump and the Republicans, Sean Hannity devoted virtually all of his hour-long Fox program to televising a Trump political rally in Louisiana. Hannity had zero coverage of Republican election losses, just released transcripts of impeachment witnesses, the Sondland flip flop, adverse court rulings, Barr's refusal to declare Trump innocent, and the opening statement of the prosecutor in the Roger Stone perjury trial. And that is only a partial list of blockbuster news that Hannity missed or chose to ignore.

This same scenario has been repeated several times in recent weeks; Hannity opting to have his program pre-empted by Trump political rallies featuring long, rambling, profane diatribes by the President, promoting local candidates and highlighting his own worthiness for re-election and by short pitches from the local politicos.

Since this coverage is patently political, not to be confused with time set aside by networks for important pronouncements by presidents on topics of national concern, my question: is this not an in kind contribution by the Fox Network to the Trump campaign; has it been reported as such and is it permissible under FCC regulations and campaign finance laws?

Change of Republican Tactics Makes No Sense

With the evidence conclusively proving that Donald Trump demanded political dirt in exchange for continued aid to the Ukraine (the oft-cited "quid pro quo"), and the process of the investigation having been made more formal and transparent,  Republicans have pivoted to a new defense made up of two components. First, claim that Mr. Trump's misconduct does not amount to an impeachable offense. Second, attack the character and credibility of the whistle-blower and of the witnesses whose testimony  described Mr.Trump's wrongdoing.

The first argument is absurd on its face. If demanding political assistance from a foreign state as a condition of continued military assistance is not a corrupt abuse of power constituting an impeachable offense then no misconduct can ever warrant impeachment. 

Neither Mr. Trump nor any of his defenders have cited any misstatement of fact by the whistle-blower or any of the witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee. Indeed, the transcript of the telephone call released by the President corroborates their statements. Thus, the identity of the whistle-blower, his motivation and credibility is utterly irrelevant. Similarly, the uncontradicted testimony of the witnesses cannot be undone by besmirching their character or discounting their estimable record of non-partisan public service. It is time for Republican officials to put the nation's welfare ahead of their personal interests.

Trump's Story of Terrorist's Death

Some make light of President Trump's fabricated account of the killing of al-Baghdadi, branding disbelievers nitpickers who are unwilling to give Mr. Trump his due. They excuse the president's continual and documented departure from fact as simply Trump being Trump.

The fact that a majority of Americans mistrust the president's credibility is a serious threat to the functioning of a democracy, where power is ceded by the many to a few. From his patently false denials of misconduct to his misdescription of storm tracks, Mr. Trump has demonstrated an inability to separate fact from fiction.  That should be a disqualifying character trait for any leader, let alone the President of the United States.