A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
I really must object to retired NYPD lieutenant and lawyer Michael Gorman's letter on Donald Trump (The Chief, April 28).
As a lawyer Mr. Gorman should understand the concept of due process. Due process applies to anyone in this country accused of malfeasance, including Donald Trump. Mr. Trump is entitled to have the facts heard by a neutral, impartial jury of his peers. The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation.
A long time ago, a coworker was accused of sexual harassment on the job. It took two and a half weeks before management decided they weren't going to file charges against them. This coworker described it as "your life comes to a standstill, waiting for the hammer to drop. Nothing to wish on anyone."
It turned out my coworker was the third in a line of seven individuals who had been similarly accused by the same person. Another individual involved with this situation was accused of covering it up. This individual managed to make the accuser understand that they were not as pure as Ivory soap, and should they go forward plenty of skeletons would come tumbling out of their own closet. The accuser dropped the matter.
Yet another legal principle Mr. Gorman as a lawyer should understand is that while an adverse inference from failure to testify may be drawn, none can be drawn when none exists.
I am not making a statement on Trump's guilt or innocence. I did not vote for Trump either election. Mr. Trump is an odious, toxic individual. But even odious, toxic people are entitled to be judged in a court of law. Not in the letters section of a newspaper.
Nat Weiner
2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
namrogm
Mr. Weiner, if this civil goes to a jury, the jury will be instructed that they can presume if they wished, that the reason that Donald Trump did not answer the questions is that the answer to every question that would be asked to him would have been unfavorable to him. And on that basis, alone, they could find against him.”
Monday, May 8, 2023 Report this
Nay Weiner is correct. We have due process and everyone deserves that right for a fair trail. I’m not a trump supporter but I’m a support of our country process in the courts. Hopefully fair and a just system is given to ALL. I don’t believe the opinions or press should try to make quick judgment without all the facts. We may need better judges but that’s another story.
Friday, May 12, 2023 Report this