MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Donald Trump Is Confused About Due Process

"Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation."

President Donald Trump is not happy about losing Rob Porter, the White aide who quit after two ex-wives alleged that he physically abused them. On Saturday, Trump tweeted a lament:

It's not clear that Donald Trump knows what "due process" means.

TrumpChris Kleponis/dpa/picture-alliance/NewscomDue process is the constitutional requirement that people receive certain protections from the government: "no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A person accused of a crime has the right to an attorney, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right not to incriminate himself, the right to a fair trial in general, etc. Due process means the government can't just toss suspected criminals in cages and throw away the key. For these reasons, it's a powerful bulwark against an authoritarian state and an important defender of the liberties of people who are especially vulnerable to state-sanctioned repression (Muslim Americans after 9/11, for instance).

Whether you think Rob Porter is guilty has nothing to do with due process. Due process does not require citizens to withhold judgment about an allegation until the matter is litigated. Due process applies to law enforcement and the justice system, not to the court of public opinion.

A private employer may wish to operate under an informal climate of due process, and the public at large might prefer a culture in which people are given the chance to present their side of the story before judgments are made. And there are more complicated situations; a public university isn't the government, but it's a government-funded public institution, and courts have found that these institutions are required to extend certain rights to faculty and students. Some universities also make contractual promises regarding due process to students, who are after all paying a great deal of money to attend the institution.

But it really doesn't apply in this situation.

Trump's tweet was inviting easy criticism already, because it comes across as callous toward a group of people—survivors of assault—who deserve respect and sympathy. People's lives are indeed destroyed by false accusations, and false accusations may be more common than some oft-cited statistics seem to suggest. But of course people's lives are also hurt significantly by domestic abuse and sexual assault. The tweet doesn't even acknowledge that.

In that context, adding an uninformed appeal to due process at the end may make it sound like due process is some sort of obstacle to holding sexual abusers accountable. And in our current political climate, many people may wish to instinctively oppose anything Trump says he favors. Don't fall into that trap. Due process is a vital defense against tyranny, and it has little to do with Rob Porter losing his job.

Photo Credit: Chris Kleponis/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Billy Bones||

    "...because it comes across as callous toward a group of people—survivors of assault—who deserve respect and sympathy."

    Please explain to me why this group of people deserve my respect and sympathy? These "victims" chose their significant others. Nothing forced these "victims" to be with an abusive spouse. Nothing stopped them from leaving at the first sign of violence. Spousal abuse is a horrible, despicable crime, but that in no way means I should have respect or sympathy for them.

  • damikesc||

    Don't even ask him to prove that they ARE "survivors of assault". I cannot fathom a divorce where either, quite upset, party might lie about the other one to cause them harm. That would be so against human nature.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I can't believe it's necessary to say this, but...

    Please explain to me why this group of people deserve my respect and sympathy?

    Because all human beings deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect and dignity, and it's generally seen as a moral good to have sympathy for people who have suffered in some way.

    These "victims" chose their significant others

    Often without knowing they were abusive

    Nothing forced these "victims" to be with an abusive spouse. Nothing stopped them from leaving at the first sign of violence.

    You have no way of knowing what individual circumstances people are in. But it has been well documented that many abusers use emotional manipulation, physical intimidation and threats of violence to coerce people into staying in abusive relationships. Sometimes there are children involved or something else that makes a victim feel like they have to stay in the relationship. Abusers often don't just hit people, they manipulate people in awful ways. Dismissing that demonstrates nothing but ignorance on your part.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Spousal abuse is a horrible, despicable crime, but that in no way means I should have respect or sympathy for them.

    See the first point. Everyone deserves some basic level of respect and dignity, and decent people try to be especially respectful of people who have suffered to avoid increasing their suffering. The definition of sympathy is "feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune". Why on Earth wouldn't you have sympathy for a victim of spousal abuse?

  • Kivlor||

    Why on Earth wouldn't you have sympathy for a victim of spousal abuse?

    Well, because they chose poorly and I don't have to respect their terrible decisions? They didn't do the due diligence that was proper for an intimate relationship thus putting themselves in this situation?

    I know, people just magically become abusive overnight. That's how it goes. There were never any warning signs. These women couldn't have done anything to find out such things.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Are you aware that serial abusers are often very skilled manipulators and come off as quite charming towards others, or do you simply not care?

  • Kivlor||

    Oh, I'm aware. You're talking to a guy whose family was extremely abusive. I've been on the receiving end. I just think it's your duty to protect yourself. These things come out in time. If you take the time for proper courtship, it will greatly reduce your odds. For those who did take the time, and they couldn't find any red flags, I do have sympathy.

  • Tionico||

    and such serial abusers almost always leave a trail of tears, lawsuits, police records, divorces, custody agreements, court ordered whatevers..... a bit of due diligence will most often turn up some hint of these things. Spend time with extended family, watch the dynamic. A tyrannical Mama is often the root of an abusive man. How is his relationship with his FATHER, and with his siblings? Want to know how he'll treat his Wife? Spend extended time around his Mother when he is around, and watch that dynamic. Sisters, too. He will honour, respect, treasure, his Bride very much like he does his famale close family members. Women being considered for a Wife need also to be vetted How is her relationship with her Daddy? Is he a tyrant, distant, uninvolved? How does she treat her brothers of any age? Are they close, is she "short" with her words toward him, snipey, bossy, silent treatment, frequent stink eye?

    One must, when considering marriage, learn to ignore one's "little head", the one "down there", and really get to know that person. You will sooner or later, but far better to know well BEFORE the ink is on the paper and the cake cut. Fancy restaurants and watching Chick Flicks whilst necking are NOT good ways to assess a potential life partner. Nor is tossing in the hay.

  • Fairbanks||

    They chose poorly in retrospect. There's no way of knowing if it was a poor choice under the circumstances. But even if it was, all they did was play the odds, and it worked to their detriment. I'm sure their intent was not to get abused. If you drive in a snow storm and are killed in a wreck, I'll have sympathy for you even though you made a bad choice.

  • Malvolio||

    Most people who suffer could have chosen more wisely and avoided some or all of their suffering. To insist that in order to qualified for sympathy, a person must be entirely a victim of circumstance, without any agency whatsoever, is to define sympathy out of existence.

  • jdgalt1||

    The accuser is only a victim if she is telling the truth, and my instinct is not to assume any such thing without evidence. (And bruises or even scars are only evidence that violence occurred, not of who was right.)

  • Tionico||

    OR who was pushing whom's buttons. I've watched both women and men, having honed their skills at this to a fine art, completely own their spouses and deliberately provoking them to respond with physical demonstrations of anger. Like the little sister who snaffles her big brother's whatever he likes, makes off with it and hides it, then is discovered... at which point HE erupts in anger, and SHE, having learned to play charades well, plays the innocent victim of his "unprovoked" wrath. Of course the Lil' Darlin' NEVER does anything the slightest bit out of order....... I know this game, I grew up with a little sister just like that. How else do I know the tactics? and so Big Brother gets the punishment, and Lil Sister skates to improve her game one more notch.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The definition of sympathy is "feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune". Why on Earth wouldn't you have sympathy for a victim of spousal abuse?

    Lack of empathy due to high functioning autism or sociopathic tendencies?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    You shouldn't have sympathy for victims of horrible, despicable crimes?

  • Number 2||

    That is not the issue. The issue is whether defending someone you believe was wrongfully accused constitutes a "callous attitude" to survivors of assault. It's like saying that someone who (correctly) claimed that the Central Park Five were falsely accused and wrongfully convicted was displaying a "callous attitude" toward people who have been beaten.

    Questioning an accusation does not in any way imply lack of "respect" or "care" for crime victims. Period.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It certainly seemed like the issue for Billy.

  • Tony||

    Did they not leave him?

  • rhkennerly||

    Apparently you've never been on the LEO side of spouse abuse calls. There are a lot of variables including children, low self-respect & blaming themselves, no job, no where to go.

    Most often I noticed that men who abused women particularly sought out women who had been conditioned to take it; either through low self-esteem (gaslighting is common), religeous upbringing, or being raised in abusive households children.

    Dads hold the kids as clef all hostages to the wife returning, sometimes even the dog. Abusers often hunt down the abused at her place of work, parents house, hospital, shelter, or abused woman safe house. Sometimes to beg them to come back because "i've changed" to murder/suicide.

    Most often, the men involved are pretty classic xxx-paths. Suave, manipulative, troubled, talented at manipulating people.

    Sometimes, it's all a drunken game of emotional button pushing on both sides.

    You have no idea how twisted these cases can be.

    The human dynamics on both sides are complicated & frightening....and severely depressing in their predictable outcomes.

  • damikesc||

    Robby, honestly, what the fuck are you writing about?

    Your, honestly, fucking asinine article here could be written by the same proponents of the Star Chambers on college campuses. You don't even seem annoyed by their existence on Libertarian grounds --- just that they are legally required to do a little. And, sure, it takes years and utterly fucks the guy's life up to pursue it...but that buttercup should just suck it up.

    Trump's tweet was inviting easy criticism already, because it comes across as callous toward a group of people—survivors of assault—who deserve respect and sympathy.

    Title IX junkie Robby Soave.

    Who says their "survivors of assault"? I see allegations. It's like saying "Well, Mattress Girl was full of shit" was offensive to "survivors of assault", even though she was not one of those people.

    In that context, adding an uninformed appeal to due process at the end may make it sound like due process is some sort of obstacle to holding sexual abusers accountable. And in our current political climate, many people may wish to instinctively oppose anything Trump says he favors. Don't fall into that trap. Due process is a vital defense against tyranny, and it has little to do with Rob Porter losing his job.

    Shorter Robby: "Sure he lost his job and his reputation is ruined without any chance to defend himself. It wasn't the government doing so, so no harm and no foul, amirite?"

  • Cyto||

    Hey, Robbie.... this comment has an acerbic tone that might leave you resistant to hearing the message, so I'll piggyback.

    Not every use of a term is going to be the first definition from the dictionary. I think pretty much everyone on the planet would know that if you were complaining about some woman getting summarily dismissed from her job because there was a rumor flying around that she was a pill popper, your use of the word "due process" wouldn't be meant to invoke the legal system of the state. You'd be talking about people taking some sort of due care to ensure that people are treated fairly and not having their lives wrecked because of a mass hysteria. "Due Process" is not only confined to a constitutional requirement. It exists outside of the constitution and outside of the law.

    Look, its tough to come up with column inches every week. I get it. And Trump is an easy target, because you have ready made "Amen Brother!" and "MAGA!" constituencies that will get all riled up by whatever you write. But spending 95% of your column on throat clearing "Of course, Trump is awful and doesn't even know what he's talking about" before finally getting to your point which completely contradicts everything that you just wrote is stupid. In fact, it kinda comes off like you had a bet about how far you could tip that balancing act.

  • Cyto||

    Here's an example:

    But of course people's lives are also hurt significantly by domestic abuse and sexual assault. The tweet doesn't even acknowledge that.

    Really? That's a legitimate criticism in your mind? That a tweet didn't give a shout-out to every possible parameter? You know what else it didn't address? The possibility that after due process he'd can the guy anyway. Or that there is room for someone to have gotten in a fight at some point in their life and still not be unemployable. Or that he should get right with Jesus and ask for forgiveness. Or any one of a hundred different angles.

    It is a facile critique in any event, but in the context of a 120 character limitation on tweets, it is just laugh-out-loud stupid.

    This whole "if Trump happens to accidentally bumble his way into a salient point we need to make sure to disavow everything about him before we can proceed" thing is really destructive. It is a bad writing tic that really detracts from the argument. In this case, it completely obscures the argument.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    may make it sound like due process is some sort of obstacle to holding sexual abusers accountable

    Well it is. Until it can be sufficiently proven that the accused actually is a sexual abuser.

  • damikesc||

    You sound like an apologist for this. "TEH LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!!!" has no use for that type of stuff, don't you know?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Just keep this in mind, I'm not agreeing with you, you're agreeing with me. It is a distinction I'd like to preserve.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Robbo loves a good witch hunt...careful Robbo your hair is sorcery. You might be lighter than a duck.

  • colorblindkid||

    People always say "It's not a witch hunt if there are actually witches", but even during the actual witch hunts, there were some pagans practicing witchcraft. While their magic was obviously fake, there were real people who considered themselves to be witches.

  • lap83||

    I assume no one knows how the witch hunts actually went because the widespread beliefs in pop culture seem to be "there were no real witches!" simultaneously with "but if there were they were just harmless victims of religious extremists who were innocently practicing their beautiful alternative spirituality!". Um yeah, both can't be true.

  • lap83||

    (sorry for the misplaced modifier, hopefully it's understandable anyway)

  • colorblindkid||

    "a 2017–2018 Novak Fellow at the Fund for American Studies"

    Well that's a fancy-sounding new addition to Robby's byline.

  • Think It Through||

    I'm gonna have to join the chorus of WTF on this one. Neither accused rapists nor supposed victims deserve my sympathy or respect. Once the legal process plays out -- DUE PROCESS -- then I'll know what to think about the guilt or innocence or evilness or ickiness of anyone I don't know.

    DUE PROCESS and judging someone informally are inextricably linked when you don't know that someone, or their accuser, and are not personally acquainted with the facts. The media is not a substitute for first hand knowledge or a jury trial.

  • Adam330||

    Ok, but no one is trying to put this guy in jail. He got denied a security clearance and was forced to resign his job. You're not arguing that a government employee losing his job or clearance should involve the same due process rights that apply in criminal cases, right?

  • KevinP||

    While losing a job could involve a lesser degree of due process, the due process should not be reduced to ZERO. Then any accusation, no matter how unfounded, would result in the accused losing a job and likely a career.

  • Adam330||

    He did get, or at least had the opportunity to get, a lesser degree of due process with respect to the security clearance. Some government jobs provide for some due process, but a job like Porter's in the WH is completely subject to Trump's whim. Porter knew that going in. It's pretty rich for the guy who actually pushed Porter out (or at least has ultimately authority over it) to be arguing that Porter didn't get due process.

  • Kivlor||

    I'd certainly argue that we don't want the government denying people employment on an accusation. What you've done is created an extra-legal system of retribution and punishment, when that must play out in the justice system if you are going to maintain some sort of societal integrity.

  • Kivlor||

    That said, I don't really have an objection to this particular instance. The guy serves at the pleasure of the president from what I gather, so if it pleases Trump to be rid of him, that's Trump's call.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Indeed, it is an implied power under Article II of the Constitution.

  • DajjaI||

    'Due Process' is just legal argle-bargle to protect rapists. Burn 'em all, is what I says.

    Hitlary for UberCückenFuhrer 2020 approves this message.

  • Adam330||

    It seems pretty likely that Porter actually did have due process here. When you're denied a security clearance, there is a process to appeal it. Porter apparently got denied last summer or fall and would have had the opportunity to appeal it. If he didn't, that was his choice.

  • Cyto||

    Hey, that would have been a salient point, were one to be writing an article based around the notion that Trump's tweet on the topic was idiotic and reprehensible.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Due process ... has little to do with Rob Porter losing his job.

    I will agree with you on this. Donald Trump could have kept Porter on staff and then would have only had to deal with constant accusations of being an evil woman hater. Even if Porter was tried in court and found not guilty of anything.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Or placed him on leave pending the results of an investigation or new information coming to light. I agree that there isn't a governmental Due Process issue here, but if Trump didn't think that an allegation was sufficient to fire him, then maybe Trump shouldn't have fired him.

  • Adam330||

    The thing is, it wasn't "just an allegation." The FBI undercovered this during its security clearance investigation and presented it to him someone last year. If Porter disagreed with it, he would have had the right to contest it. Either he didn't do that, or he did and the adjudicator found the allegations to be credible enough in light of the evidence.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Thanks, I didn't know that

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    But what they "uncovered" was in fact still "just an allegation"

    It's like you don't know what the words you're using mean

  • Adam330||

    An allegation that he had the opportunity to contest through the security clearance appeal process, and either didn't or did and lost. Once your trial is over and you've been found guilty, it's not "just an allegation" anymore.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Well, he never had a trial and it was still "just an allegation" so you still seem to still be using words you don't understand.

    And before you double down on fucktard, refusing to defend yourself against an allegation doesn't make it true, despite your fucktard claim right there that it does.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    if Trump didn't think that an allegation was sufficient to fire him, then maybe Trump shouldn't have fired him.

    I thought he voluntarily resigned. Perhaps he was told to voluntarily resign? AKA, "voluntold."

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    They've not really settled on a story. Initially it was that he resigned, and then this or that spokesman said he was fired.

  • Don't look at me.||

    At this point, what difference does it make?

  • jdgalt1||

    No, Robby, you're wrong and Trump was right. The law requires only the institutions of government to presume innocense, but justice and common decency requires us all to do the same. Especially now that both government and private parties frequently use charges of sexual misconduct to ruin innocent people's lives.

    On this one the President is more of a libertarian than you are.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I am increasingly becoming a libertarian that hates other libertarians.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    That's the only kind of libertarian.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Yeah, that's pretty much the only common denominator among libertarians is that we hate every member of every political tribes, including each other and ourselves.

  • Cyto||

    Spoken like a LINO. Any real libertarian would know that there is no common denominator.

  • lap83||

    I would hate them, if any other libertarians existed

  • MarkLastname||

    Good, let the hate flow through you

  • Mickey Rat||

    Leaving asude the question of whether Porter did what he is accused of doing, what I gather from this is that it is acceptable to ruin someone's reputation, and being against libel and slander torts on principle, the the person publicizing allegations has no legal responsibility for those allegations having any relationship with truth.

    That sounds like an unpleasant reality to live in.

  • Tony||

    That sounds like an unpleasant reality to live in.

    So does marriage with Rob Porter.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    One can choose that reality, the other is forced upon us.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Mickey Rat,

    [...] the person publicizing allegations has no legal responsibility for those allegations having any relationship with truth.


    Yes. That poor wife beater.

    Does it cross yoir mind that the accuser could also be placing her reputation in jeopardy?

  • Kivlor||

    But of course people's lives are also hurt significantly by domestic abuse and sexual assault. The tweet doesn't even acknowledge that.

    It doesn't acknowledge that people are significantly hurt by domestic abuse and sexual assault because that is a given, Robby. Do you know anyone that thinks people that are assaulted by their spouses, or raped or sexually abused are not injured? I defy you to provide such a person.

    The point was that a mere allegation can destroy someone's life. And that should be concerning from a libertarian perspective. Losing your job and career over an allegation is not liberty, that is a form of tyranny.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Kivlor,

    It doesn't acknowledge that people are significantly hurt by domestic abuse and sexual assault because that is a given, Robby.


    Indeed? Because by that same token, it goes without saying that giving false testimony is, for lack of a better word, bad. In fact, it's one of God's Laws: Ye shall not give false testimony.

    So if the p...y-grabber and Racial Expert-in-Chief is willing to remind us of one obvious truth, why not go the extra mile for the other?

    In other words: Idiot!

  • fafalone||

    Isn't 'private entities can do whatever they want for any reason they choose and virtually no restrictions on that should exist' a popular libertarian position?

  • Tony||

    I don't mind his call for due process. It's just his selectivity with it. He wanted the Central Park 5 to fry even after he knew they were innocent. Also, LOCK HER UP.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Yes, lock her up. When did you come to your senses?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tony,

    In this climate of open hostility towards people of different tribes, Trump's incantations will always favor the people he likes, especially himself.

    I DO mind his call for due process not because of his hypocrisy (which is what you're pointing out) but because of his ignorance.

  • lap83||

    The tweet doesn't even acknowledge that.

    Robby, we love you, but nobody gives a shit.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Tweets are just so conducive to complex and nuanced thoughts on anything.

    Which is why the journalist profession is in love with Twitter.

  • Number 2||

    "It's not clear that Donald Trump knows what "due process" means"

    Really?

    Barack Obama told us that "due process" means that he could secretly decide, based on secret evidence and secret criteria, to summarily execute any American citizen he deemed to be an imminent threat, even if the target of execution was not imminently threatening anyone.

    Tell me who's misunderstanding of "due process" is worse.

  • fafalone||

    I haven't seen any evidence Trump wouldn't follow that precedent.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "Due process" (or lack thereof) comes up for lack of a better term to describe the method and effect of the neo-McCarthyite (and yes, I knew people blacklisted in the early 1950s) sanctions imposed on the "perpetrators". There are almost no actual arrests (yeah, yeah I know about Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky), much less investigations and trial complete with vigorous cross-examination (after all, victims are always to be believed).

    Try and convince Kevin Spacey that his career is not ruined. Try and tell Greg Schiano that he has a future as a college head coach. This is essentially accomplishing the result of a criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit without the burdens of actually having to go through one, usually because there are no concrete facts to support it (Schiano) or because the alleged conduct occurred well outside of the statute of limitations (Spacey). Oh, well. We don't need to respect our laws and the reasons for them. Just get the fly swatter.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Say, Robby, when did you stop spying for Putin?

  • ||

    This is just as asinine as the "it's only censorship when the government does it" argument.

    That may be technically true, but that doesn't really change the end result for someone who's on the receiving end of unfair and premature punishment (or censorship in the public sphere), now does it?

    Besides that, "due process" has more than one meaning in common language. One is the legal concept, the other is the way in which Trump used it, and I'm sure you know this (just like the term "public sphere" I used above...).

  • Chris_Halkides||

    Due process is a human right, just as freedom of speech is.

  • mondo_cane||

    The point here is that accusations can create the manifestation of a "crime" simply by the allegation. If a woman cries rape and accuses a man of it, who is going to listen to the man before pronouncing a crime to have been committed?

    A man accused falsely is fair game for the law, the media and everyone else. This is not a rare thing. We read of accusations made against a man, only to learn later that it was mistaken or just plain false. In rare cases, the accusation turns out to be done for spite to hurt the man.

    But that doesn't make the stigma of the accusation disappear. That's carried with the man forever. Wherever he goes people eventually learn about the accusation and therefore conclude the man is probably guilty. Jobs are lost. Names are sullied. Families are destroyed. Reputations are left in tatters. All because of an accusation and no proof of the act.

  • Tionico||

    in other words, the PROCESS of attempting to "prove" one's innocence IS the PUNISHMENT.

    Consider folks like George Zimmerman, falsely accused of murder in the public sphere by a lying media operative who edited the audio recording of the 911 call, turning the self defense shooting death of an "angelic cherub twelve year old choir boy" (who was, in reality, a large, fit, VERY strong Mixed Martial Arts competitor) into a racially motivated murder by a busybody in the public eye. This provoked a wanna be famous uppity politically aggressive prosecutor into charging the victim for a crime he did not commit. Add a heavily stacked jury, carefully selected to be predisposed to convict, an incredibly prejudiced judge, near unanimous "conviction" in the skewed court of public opinion. and it is a near miracle he was acquitted of any of the accusations... but he was. Even after acquittal, the public continued to allow themselves to accuse the man, essentially driving him underground. All this cost him his reputation, employment, and all the money he had. Public opinion, based on the stack of lies, still holds Mr Zimmerman a murder. It even took him a year or so to get his handgun back..... AFTER his acquittal. The process WAS the sentence for him.

  • qlangley||

    The answer to his question is, however, that, no, there is no such thing as due process anymore. The vast majority of criminal charges are not subject to due process but to defendants being intimidated into guilty pleas through the threat of more serious charges being laid against them. Witnesses are often also intimidated and or bribed into giving evidence via the same procedure.

  • rhkennerly||

    Although I am watching for the backlash against this hashtag movement to begin. All effective hashtag movements start off pretty well but end up running a little too long or pushing a little to hard. #BLM comes to mind. Or their power is diluted or message confused by counter hashtag movements. In the case of #BLM it was #AllLivesMatter & #BlueLivesMatter.

  • rhkennerly||

    (unrelated, but how do you edit comments when you find a typo here? I can't even find a way to delete & retype the post).

  • RonBPalmer||

    The problem is that there is NO due process in family law. Many family law judges argue that they are not even state actors and are NOT subject to constitutional limitation when determining if someone is guilty of domestic violence if it is raised by an ex spouse in divorce or in a custody hearing. The New Jersey Supreme Court has stated in an opinion that parents should expect to lose rights in court and that just by showing up to court they have waived their rights. Anyone who knows what due process means, knows that this ain't it.

    Due process in family law comes down to the mere opinion of a sole government official of what he or she believes to be in your child's best interest. That's it. Nothing more.

    What qualifies as domestic violence? Anything they want. There often are little to no standards.

    Family law courts have zero credibility. They are a farce. I for one never ever believe what a family law judge says. I have been lied to by too many. I have seen them claim in federal court filings that they have NO duty to the constitution and cannot be bound by it. If you raise your constitutional rights in family courts, you will be told by the judge that you aren't putting the best interest of your child first, and their opinion is all it takes to remove your child from your life completely.

    What would you lie about to keep your child? Exactly!

  • Tionico||

    Mr. Trump was talking about a LOT MORE than Rob Porter. Consider a few egregious denials or corruptions of due process over the past few years: Bundys, 700 days more or less in prison on imagined charges, SERIOUS denial of their rights for due process, which INCLUDES a speedy trial. Some of them spent months in solitary, and all were wrongly denied bail. Prosecutors deliberately withheld signficant information, denied them the right to properly examine some witnesses, even denied the existance of certain facts. How about Mssrs Hammond, Father and Son, falsely accused of arson, a clearly defined action they never committed. Judge sold them down the river as well, denied defense the opportunity to properly address the jury with pertinent facts and law (such as a legal definition of "arson", the crime of which they were falsely accused. They served the outrageous ssentence imposed after a scam trial, were released, then a different judge decided, without due process, that that was not enough, and they're back behind bars for another four years... for a crime they DID NOT commit.

  • Tionico||

    How about LaVoy Finicum, accused, tried, convicted, sentenced, and EXECUTED with NO due process of any sort, for who knows what "crime". The closest thing I can discover is that he stopped at an illegal roadblock, was fired upon with no provocation, then left to preserve six lives in his truck. A bit down the road, a new roadblock, on a blind curve, they began shooting before he had a chance to try and stop on the snowy road. Tried to draw fire away from the occupied truck, again. OSP killed him, he had made NO moves to threaten them or anyone else. ON WHAT GROUNDS was he executed? Roy Moore also comes to mind.... accusations alledgedly of actions of his forty years ago, almost all of it proven false, groundless, yet he was convicted in the court of public opinion, and was just as harmed as if he'd been tried in criminal court, but had NO due process.

  • tommhan||

    What you say is true but anyone accused now seems to be automatically judged guilty by media or Hollywood "celebrities".

  • Schizoidman_21||

    Robby - have you stopped beating your wife yet?

  • GamerFromJump||

    No, Trump is completely right. You should not be able to have your life nuked by an accusation. Especially since there is no consequence for lying in said accusation.

  • ohdelilah||

    And yet, Trump supports the police, who "nuke" people's lives every single day on much less evidence. And there's never any consequences when they get caught lying, either.

  • ohdelilah||

    I think Trump understands due process just fine. He understands that it's something the rich and the powerful enjoy for themselves but the rest of us can't touch.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online