The Trials of Outrage: Political Prosecution of a former President

 As most people in the States are aware, the District Attorney of Manhattan, NY has been pursuing an investigation into former President Donald Trump's relationship and subsequent clashes with a woman who claims to have had an intimate relationship with him years ago.  The facts of the matter seem fairly clear and clean-cut: Trump had an affair with a porn star, got her to agree to a non-disclosure agreement, then when he ran for president his attorney arranged a payment to the woman to help maintain her agreement to silence.  Now at face value this may seem like a damning situation, and one that the attorney general of Manhattan is banking on people thinking so; but what is the legal basis of seeking prosecution against the man?  The entire search for prosecution hinges on a vague (and as the NY Times itself refers to it as) legal "theory", that one of Trump's former attorneys arranging such a payment was an violation of campaign finance laws.  Not that paying the woman for silence was a crime, not that having the affair was a crime, not that having her sign an NDA was a crime; all of which have previously been taken to court against him and he has WON against his accusers.  Instead, the overly progressive DA is banking on the murky waters of campaign finance theoretical legal jargon to give him a pretext to charge the former president with a crime that is undefined in law; and one which has been leveled against other politicians in recent years, but has always been thrown out because it has no legal ground to stand on.  Previous Democratic presidential candidate hopeful John Edwards was charged with virtually identical theoretical charges  in 2011 (although it was double the amount of money involved in the Trump case), for which he was acquitted and all charges dropped because there is no law or legal statute that says a man cannot pay his mistress to have her keep silent.  Distasteful and sinful it may be; but it is not a violation of the civil law.

Instead of following legal precedent and process, however, the Manhattan District Attorney, who apparently has nothing better to do in his increasingly crime-ridden city; has decided to proceed with a mock investigation and kangaroo court in order to damn the former president in the public eye.   It is obvious to anyone who knows the law, that this is an absurd situation, but one that the American Democratic party is desperate to cling to in hopes that they can make their principle opponent look as bad as possible in the run-up to the next presidential election.  It is a political prosecution, that would not have even been considered if it were not Donald Trump who were the accused.  

I have never personally liked Donald Trump, I have always found him to be morally reprehensible.  However, as a Priest and one who is charged with observing the TRUTH; I must state that this entire charade of legal proceedings against the man is an absurdity which degrades the nature of truth, and worse- drags truth through the mud of politically motivated hatred and wickedness.  Trump will receive no fair treatment from the Manhattan DA's office, because the Democratic party have already judged him guilty of any crime they may choose to pursue.  And like the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland" declared in her own mock-trial of the knave of hearts, they declare: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards!" 





Comments

New comments are not allowed.

Popular posts from this blog

Pope Proposes People Pass the Prescript!

Image
  In a move that should come as little to no shock to many, the Arch-Heretic in white of Rome today announced that Roman Catholic priests would be permitted to bless same-sex couples- "provided they do not resemble marriages".   What the Lout has done is essentially what the United Methodist Bishops did, which caused the breaking up of the Methodist Union:  telling one group of people (heterosexual couples) that they must abide by the rules and regulations hereunto set forth in canon law and church doctrine; while telling another group of people (homosexual couples) that they don't have to follow those same rules, that they get a pass on it because "God loves them too".   The main issue at hand is not even whether same-sex couples/ marriage is morally right or wrong; but rather a man (or group of leaders) telling 2 groups of people to follow 2 diametrically opposed sets of rules, while claiming both are perfectly acceptable and equal.  NO.  If you want to be a c
Read more

The Commerce of Christ at Christmas?

Image
  In just under a month, Christians will gather in crowded, candlelit churches on Christmas Eve to celebrate the great feast of our Savior's birth.  Recently, some clergy friends of mine have directed me to an interesting little thing that the Episcopal Church's National Cathedral in DC has decided to do for Christmas Eve this year.   Are they going to bring in the homeless so that they have a warm place to sleep that night?  No. Are they going to actually preach the Christ whom they are obliged to by the book of common prayer?  No. Are they going to charge people to attend Christmas Eve Mass and receive Christ?  YES! You heard that correctly, the National Cathedral in Washington, DC; has decided to CHARGE people to attend a worship service on Christmas Eve.  Now some will defend this move as an attempt to control crowd levels or such; but that goes against the very essence of the Christian faith and the nature of cathedrals themselves.  The very reason why we build great churc
Read more

Anglicans in the Ambulatory!!!

Image
  This week, a number of Traditionalist Anglican clergy and their Bishop (of Fulham), are on retreat in Rome.  They were invited by the clergy in charge of St. John in Lateran to hold a mass in the "choir" of the cathedral, behind the main altar of the church.  What to many Christians might seem a point of fraternal generosity or a sign of mutual respect; has instead inflamed the passions of a number of Roman Catholic churchmen and laymen across the Christian world.    How dare those silly protestants hold their service in our church???  The claim that is referenced in defending such position, is the old argument that because Pope Leo XIII issued the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae which claimed Anglican Orders as "utterly null and void"; that this means definitively that Anglican Apostolic succession is indeed null and void.  Unfortunately for my more conservative minded Roman Catholic friends, a Papal Bull is not the law of the church.  There have been many Papal Bul
Read more