I don’t think there’s any question that one of the motives for this law was to get Trump. But there’s a reason for statutes of limitation, and those reasons are apparent in the current trial. Memories fade, the allegations are not tied to a particular date, and how can Trump ever defend himself against something so vague in time, or find witnesses or schedules that could exonerate him? It’s a travesty, and I would say that no matter who the defendant in such a case might be. The only possibly justifiable exception might be if someone was a child when the alleged battery happened, and even then I come down more on the side of protecting the defendant from false claims – and false claims do occur, and not just against politicians.

Nevertheless, I believe this jury will find Trump guilty, although I don’t think the evidence justifies it. I would be quite flabbergasted if they didn’t find him guilty.

[The New York legislature decided in its wisdom to open a new window around the statutes of limitation, so it’s legit in the legal sense, but I share Neo’s opposition to it. Those exist for a reason, as stated in this post. However, this is a defamation trial rather than a rape trial, and the most recent defamation took place well within the statute of limitation for that civil complaint — thanks to Trump’s inability to refrain from public comment. Still, all of these defamation claims hinge on whether Trump sexually battered Carroll in a dressing room at an undetermined date and time, and that kind of ambiguity is what those statutes are supposed to prevent. — Ed]