Oh, for the best, expect the worst, some preach and pain, some die of thirst, the way of knowing which way it's going.

Oh, for the best, expect the worst.

Welcome to the commentary magazine daily podcast today is Wednesday, May 10th, 2023. I'm John Pudhurtz, the editor of commentary magazine with me as always executive editor, a greenwald hi Abe.

Hi John, media commentary columnist Christine Rosen, high Christine, hi John.

And Christine's colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, our Washington commentary columnist Matthew continuity. Hi, Matt.

Hi John.

Oh my God, so much to talk about today. We have the Trumping found liable by the jury in New York of battery and defamation. We have a rockets, blizzards of rockets being fired at Israel from Gaza at what might be the beginning of a multi front war, which we should talk about.

We have the debt ceiling meeting yesterday at the White House and a very disturbing press availability appearance by Joe Biden in the immediate aftermath of said debt ceiling conversation.

I guess we should start with Trump and the verdict.

Everyone's immediately gone to the question of what this will do to his political prospects.

And whether or not it will materially affect them, it will hurt him, it'll help him.

I like to, I want to talk about that, but I want to talk about the verdict itself. And I want to start by reading something that Alan Dershowitz wrote and then challenging what Alan Dershowitz wrote.

This is in spectator world. Alan Dershowitz is a his field of expertise as a lawyer is as an appellate lawyer that is he is a guy you go to after a verdict has come down against you.

He's the one who figures out whether or not you have a case to make on appeal that errors were introduced into the process either by the judge or in the proceedings in some fashion or other that warrant an effort to overturn the verdict in a second hearing before an appeals court.

So this is his field and so he knows he's talking about so when I challenge him, I am cognizant of the fact that I am doing something where he's an expert and I'm not, but nonetheless, here's what he says.

The United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit to which this case will be appealed will have its work cut out for it.

There will be other substantial issues they include the extension of the statute of limitations after the already expired.

This is at the state level, by the way, which allowed the plaintiff to bring quarter century old case this may well constitute denial of due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Other appellate issues will include the judge is strange ruling that the names of the jurors will remain anonymous even to the lawyers less denying them the ability to research the jurors and determine whether any hidden biases may have existed.

This may violate the defendant's constitutional right to trial by jury, guaranteed by the seventh amendment additional appellate issues will include the judge's decision to admit some evidence presented by the plaintiff such as the infamous access Hollywood tape.

As well as the testimony of other women who were deemed to corroborate the plaintiff's testimony the judge also excluded some evidence of the defendant sought to admit.

And he concludes if the appellate in this case had a name other than Donald Trump there was a good likelihood that the entire verdict might be reversed.

...