I would suggest watching both the direct and cross of both psychologists Dr Curry and Dr Hughes - and then watching Amber Heard on the stand. Nobody KNOWS if anyone has a personality disorder, such a thing can't be KNOWN, it can only be diagnosed by a qualified person using diagnostic tools which are universally agreed to be robust. Of the two psychologists, I found Dr Curry to be the most compelling and balanced and her descriptions of the likely behaviours you'd see from someone with BPD and histrionic personality disorder were then evidenced on the stand. You may have a different view after viewing them both - but you cannot dismiss expert testimony in a court of law simply because it doesn't fit your own view.

I don't know why you seem so insistent that he's committed a high level of egregious abuse, other than 'he's a man and that's what they do and get away with' - if you haven't watched the court case unfold and you haven't seen first hand whether or not on the balance of probabilities this was fact or fabrication on her part - then I'm not sure why you're coming down so firmly on it MUST be fact.

But this is likely the decision made by the ACLU too - and historically I'd agree with you, they have been a bastion of centre ground rationality across US history - but the influx of money as a reaction to the Trump administration has pushed them into progressive politics where they arguably shouldn't dabble. The change from Ira Glasser to Anthony Romero wasn't a smart choice when viewed in the fullness of time. The Heard case exemplifies that poor decision making at the top level. It's an ideologically possessed organisation and that's problematic. Glasser has been somewhat vocal about the direction his successor has taken the organisation and believes their new mandate “has the capacity to destroy the organization as it has always existed.” - quite frankly, I agree with him.