Franklin Graham urges prayers ahead of possible Trump indictment: 'Politically motivated'
“Franklin Graham urges prayers ahead of possible Trump indictment: ‘Politically motivated’ ” - CPost
- 390 views
There’s a bigger question here than “what’s the motive?” It’s “Is Trump a crook?”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My prayer for former President Trump is that he would retire quietly and allow the country to move on. I don't know if that's possible for him.
A good prayer! Mine have leaned more towards the imprecatory, I’m afraid. But that’s a lot more gracious, which is a better way to go with it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I have the same prayer for Franklin as well. Retire quietly and allow conservative evangelicism to move on.
Does it mean "someone guilty of breaking any law, whether or not that law tends to be applied?", or does it mean "someone guilty of breaking a law which is typically enforced by prosecutors against people of all political persuasions, including the police"?
If the likelihood of punishment depends strongly on profession, race, or political affiliation, the law serves as a convenient bludgeon in the hands of biased prosecutors. I'm seeing this more and more, and it stinks.
Not defending Trump's apparent fornication with Daniels at all here, but let's not forget for a minute that the same cast of characters shouting for things to continue against Trump had a decidedly different tune back in 1998, something like "everybody lies about sex."
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Interestingly, several of the dictionaries start with variations of a bent stick… which I doubt reflects how most people use the word in this century. But any of these definitions will do…
4 : a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices
Cambridge’s entry made me smile…
[ C ] informal
a very dishonest person, especially a criminal or a cheat:
- These politicians are just a bunch of crooks.
4. a dishonest person, especially a sharper, swindler, or thief.
informal
a : a dishonest person
He thinks politicians are just a bunch of crooks.
b : a criminal
a small-time crook
Also relevant…. ‘I Am Not A Crook’: How A Phrase Got A Life Of Its Own
As for Trump, my point with re-direction away from the “motivated by” question is simple: what matters is what sort of human being he is when it comes to criminal and/or very unethical behavior. Whether there is ever a successful conviction is a separate question (OJ Simpson comes to mind). I’m about 87% sure the man is a crook in the formal sense and 100% sure he’s a crook in the informal sense. The seedy, self-serving motives many have in going after him doesn’t change that at all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron Blumer wrote: As for Trump, my point with re-direction away from the “motivated by” question is simple: what matters is what sort of human being he is when it comes to criminal and/or very unethical behavior. Whether there is ever a successful conviction is a separate question (OJ Simpson comes to mind). I’m about 87% sure the man is a crook in the formal sense and 100% sure he’s a crook in the informal sense. The seedy, self-serving motives many have in going after him doesn’t change that at all.
[Emphasis mine]
Those “seedy, self-serving motives” may not change the absolute guilt or innocence of Trump at all, but they certainly do change the way such guilt or innocence is perceived, and they affect how interested people are in seeing justice done in this particular case, when it’s clear it’s not done in other cases.
In the Pentateuch, one of the things condemned by God multiple times when giving all the commandments to the children of Israel was partiality in executing justice. Along with that, one of the Ten Commandments specifically forbade false witnesses, and other scriptures direct how they should be punished, when hardly any today are punished for lying under oath, or again, it’s very selective.
As long as it’s obvious to everyone the difference shown to Trump vs. say, Clinton (whose campaign was fined, rather than anyone being convicted, for marking the purchase of the fake Steele dossier as a “legal expense” rather than a “campaign expense”), many (most?) will focus more on the “seedy, self-serving motives” that go after Trump when the same legal system refuses to go after Clinton. And all the information coming to light about the corruption of the Biden family? Crickets. No, that doesn’t mean Trump shouldn’t face justice (if indeed he actually committed a crime), but it means many people are much less likely to care about something with far fewer repercussions for our country than what the Biden family’s possible crimes might mean. But no one even wants to look into those, let alone prosecute them.
The same is true with January 6th. Sure, there were some things that definitely should be punished. However, when there are no repercussions at all for the much huger riots, damage, and number of people killed of summer 2020, and those acts are written off as “legitimate protest,” you can’t expect people to get “righteous” about convicting the January 6th defendants. And the sometimes violent occupation of the Wisconsin capitol building about 12 years ago or so when protesting Walker’s changes to public sector unions? Again, that’s somehow legitimate protest.
Absolute guilt or innocence matters, but selective prosecution, and ignoring of “no one is above the law” is what actually destroys people’s belief that the law applies to everyone, and that all criminal actions should be tried, when clearly many are not.
Dave Barnhart
dcbii wrote: The same is true with January 6th. Sure, there were some things that definitely should be punished. However, when there are no repercussions at all for the much huger riots, damage, more people killed of summer 2020, and those acts are written off as “legitimate protest,” you can’t expect people to get “righteous” about convicting the January 6th defendants. And the sometimes violent occupation of
I don't understand the statement that "there are no repercussions at all" for the riots in 2020. There were over 10,000 rioters arrested during that time. And as bad as those riots were, there is still something different about rioters breaking into the capital while chanting "hang Mike Pence". It baffles me that what happened on January 6th is looked at so dismissively by some.
I do agree that what's good for one party is good for the other, and not really a fan of what-about-ism from either party. Corruption should be prosecuted no matter who is doing it, whether it's the Biden family, Hillary, or Trump. I'm not necessarily convinced that the actions taken against Trump are politically motivated, though.
Ken S wrote: I don’t understand the statement that “there are no repercussions at all” for the riots in 2020. There were over 10,000 rioters arrested during that time.
And how many of those 2020 “arrests” resulted in people being jailed for months or years without trial, and how many convictions have come from those arrests, with most just having been released?
January 6th is different from what happened in the summer of 2020, but chants of “Hang Mike Pence” were no worse than much of what the rioters in 2020 were chanting, and were tamer than some. And how much of the capitol building was burned? The damages in total were on the order of a couple million, not between $500 million and $1 billion which are the estimates for summer 2020.
Those who assaulted officers should be punished, and most of those from January 6th are being punished. How many convictions have arisen from assaults of police officers, locking officers in a building and setting it on fire, killing some officers (which did not happen on January 6th) from the summer of 2020? Again, I’m not crying for those who committed crimes on January 6th. They are getting punished (though it appears in some cases that they are being treated illegally). But I’m also pretty much past the point of caring whether the government should go after the rest of them when there’s practically no punishment for summer 2020. My statement earlier was hyperbole, when I said “no repercussions.” But let’s be honest about the percentages of those being prosecuted. There’s really no comparison, and it doesn’t give most people trust that their government prosecutes all crimes rather than just some. The double standard is not only obvious, it’s disgusting.
You can talk about “what about-ism” all day long, but partiality in justice is partiality in justice, and calling it out isn’t wrong.
Dave Barnhart
It’s not possible to solve a “failure to prosecute A” problem by choosing to “also fail to prosecute B.”
Although that may be “more fair,” it isn’t more lawful and isn’t movement toward a solution.
It’s worth noting, too, that when comparing Jan 6 to “all the other riots,” none of the others were…
- Attacks on the nation’s capitol
- Attacks on a facility where legislators were attempting to do their duties
- Attempts—for many present—to prevent legislators from doing their lawful duties
- Attempts to prevent the legal transfer of power/keep a sitting president in power who lost an election
Jan 6 is qualitatively different from burning down a city block, however egregious that may be.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron Blumer wrote:
It’s not possible to solve a “failure to prosecute A” problem by choosing to “also fail to prosecute B.”
True. It’s not a solution. But such prosecution as what is happening with Trump (which may be legitimate assuming the evidence is presented), can certainly be used to protest that other crimes are being ignored, for the same reason that civil rights protesters could complain that blacks were being tried for theft (legitimate) while those committing lynchings were being ignored.
Aaron Blumer wrote:
It’s worth noting, too, that when comparing Jan 6 to “all the other riots,” none of the others were…
- Attacks on the nation’s capitol
- Attacks on a facility where legislators were attempting to do their duties
- Attempts—for many present—to prevent legislators from doing their lawful duties
The riot/protest in the Wisconsin capitol building was all of the above (though towards a state, not the nation). Where’s the outrage? Absent, of course, because the “correct” side perpetrated it. The lack of prosecution for one doesn’t make the other right, but it certainly shows that we cannot trust our leaders to execute justice faithfully or impartially.
Dave Barnhart
dcbii wrote: The riot/protest in the Wisconsin capitol building was all of the above (though towards a state, not the nation). Where’s the outrage? Absent, of course, because the “correct” side perpetrated it. The lack of prosecution for one doesn’t make the other right, but it certainly shows that we cannot trust our leaders to execute justice faithfully or impartially.
I don't think the Wisconsin capitol riot is in any way excusable, no matter which side did it. But I just can't see it as the same significance as the Jan 6 riot which attempted to overthrow the election of a president and would in all likelihood have harmed/killed certain lawmakers if able. The Wisconsin riot is not any less wrong, just not the same magnitude of an event, and I'd assume that's why it didn't get the same airplay.
At the end of the day, I don't think we'd actually disagree with each other that we want justice served fairly and consistently no matter to whom it's being served.
Ken S wrote: At the end of the day, I don’t think we’d actually disagree with each other that we want justice served fairly and consistently no matter to whom it’s being served.
On this, at least, we can agree.
Dave Barnhart
Some look at the Capitol riot as unique for reasons noted above, some note that the "Occupy", "Antifa", and BLM riots killed dozens and destroyed billions in property. I think both have a point.
And what others have noted about selective prosecution; Deuteronomy calls that a crime for a reason. No doubt Trump is a crooked man in many ways; so are Jim Comey, Robert Mueller, Merrick Garland, and the DA in this case. Give them their way (as has obviously occurred with Comey, Mueller, and Garland), and they will continue the behavior.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
There was outrage. …not from those who agreed with the violence, but from lots of others.
Worth noting, though, that nobody was hold on to power after losing an election. That’s huge all by itself. The Wisconsin riot was protesting a particular piece of legislation or changes to it (Act 10).
It was lawlessness, so fits in that same general category. There was also a lot of property damage, so overlap there. No attempt to reverse an election at the behest of the one who lost. Nobody died. No police were assaulted. I’m not sure there were even any injuries other than the employee who cut himself trying to pop balloons in the capitol building. … It seems likely there had to be some injuries, but it doesn’t seem to have been anyone’s intention to do physical harm. But that may have been the result of the decision by police to not try to remove protestors from the building.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion