The System Worked: Kevin H

You may also like...

149 Responses

  1. Dread says:

    Methinks the system has just begun. Your post is high-sounding politicized nonsense with every talking point except for the call to repent so let’s get on with that.

  2. Kevin H says:


    What exactly is the “high-sounding politicized nonsense”? What have I said that is untrue?

  3. Xenia says:

    The system is corrupt.

  4. Xenia says:

    Now let this system do its work on Biden, Pelosi, and pretty much every other politician.

  5. Kevin H says:


    There is most definitely corruption in the system. To make a blanket statement which indicts the entire system as being corrupt I believe is a step too far.

    In this particular case against Trump, many keep making the charge that attorney general is corrupt, the judge is corrupt, the jury is corrupt, etc. Yet no one actually produces any evidence beyond mere speculation to back up their claims of these specific people being corrupt. That is a big problem.

    If there is enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing to charge Biden or Pelosi or any other politician of crimes, like there was of Trump, then I say bring the charges.

  6. Michael says:

    I hesitated about posting this as I knew what the responses would be.

    Kevin would get roasted and there wouldn’t be much in the way of exchange…just proclamations of what side one was on.

    According to most there is not a person in the state of New York able to judge righteously and the judge and jury involved were hopelessly and maybe willfully biased.

    Trump, the billionaire adulterer, is the victim.

    If we’re going to give an account for every word. I hope you guys are right….

    The crowds will always choose the political zealot no matter the crime…Barabbas will be freed once again.

  7. Kevin H says:


    And I hesitated in sending this one to you, knowing the reactions it would bring about here at the blog.

    When one makes an accusation, it is their moral obligation to support the accusation through facts, evidence, and reason. That is exactly what the prosecutors did in their case against Trump. And it is exactly what is not happening by those who keep calling everything and everyone in this case corrupt.

    Could they be corrupt? Sure. Could they be overridingly biased? Sure. Do we have any significant evidence that any of these actors in this case acted corruptly or allowed bias to override them in their execution of it? No.

    The statements I made in the first portion of this article are based on the facts and evidence we have. Not on politics, as I have been charged as doing. However, I believe it is those who are making charges of corruption who are allowing their political biases to sway their thinking and words. They assume corruption, but cannot substantiate the charges.

  8. Rob Murphy says:

    I prefer Michael’s post (The Trump Verdict).

    “The system worked” once upon a time and said an enslaved man was only partially man, and prior to that ‘revolutionary’ idea, the enslaved man was no man at all.

    The system eventually adapted toward recognizing the dignity of the individual, yet that system that moved from ‘not man’ to ‘man’ today still has separate tiers, so it’s at best a ‘work in progress’. Where does that work in progress take us? Progress toward what?

    The ‘system worked’ in that it moved in a direction. Movement is not necessarily good just because it happens.

    We could look to the Bible and see – if justice is corrupted by this, then the Bible says we’ll see people continue to invent doing new ways of evil.

    Maybe this judgment leads to our culture shifting toward Utopia.

    In the immediate, it doesn’t sound like it is generating harmonious celebration of the nobility of the rule of law.

  9. Janet linn, BrideofChrist says:

    I have noticed the tendency here on this site for some contributors to call political figures ‘corrupt’ without offering any evidence, so I greatly appreciate you taking the time to point out that a vague accusation, unsupported by any evidence, is irresponsible and wrong, Kevin. These vague accusations are common on other sites, but shouldn’t it be different on this site? Shouldn’t there be a higher standard? Just as it’s irresponsible to continue to claim that the last election was stolen, when multiple court cases have proven the opposite. Our judicial court system is based on Judeo Christian principles. There will be an appeal, but there must be a basis for an appeal. Again, based on facts, not emotion or vague beliefs.

  10. Too Much Drama says:


    “In this particular case against Trump, many keep making the charge that attorney general is corrupt, the judge is corrupt, the jury is corrupt, etc. ”

    You are over dramatizing this and this article is clearly an opinion piece.

    Not one of the above was “corrupt” and all legitimate news people, including Fox, have agreed.

    What the above are is clearly prejudiced against Trump. The entire NYC venue, including the DA and Prosecutor were purposely placed to come against Trump. I have said to all my friends that Trump had no chance of being acquitted nor hung jury in this NYC prosecution. The preverbal “snow ball’s chance in hell.”

    The fact is juries even when presented facts and truth by one side or the other do not always get it right. For example OJ Trial.

    PS. If you haven’t seen the movie ’12 Angry Men’ you should. Classic questioning of the system. Everyone who serves on a jury should be required to see this.

    What I hear from you are two things, the first is you are defending the system and failing to look at all the available information and facts which led to this charge, process and conviction.
    The second is you are bashing and grouping way too many fellow Christians together in their idolization of Trump. And this tells me you are prejudice because of your extreme dislike for Trump or what he represents.

    You are entitled to your opinion piece and Michael has given you the space to express it. But be very careful in make a spiritual and religious arguments to give authority to your opinion.

    Yes there is too much drama and this too will end. “There’s nothing new under the sun.”

  11. Kevin H says:


    I’ve already made the prerequisite caveats that our system can and does contain corruptions and imperfections. However, the first question is, if not our system, what would work better, knowing that any system is going to be setup and run by fallen people? The second question is in regards to this specific case, where can we point to with facts and evidence that the system was corrupted or performed improperly?

    Additionally, in our current state of great political division, we will never have a harmonious celebration of the nobility of the rule of law, as one side or the other is always going to think that their side got the shaft. The best we can do is step back from all the political fracas and judge based on facts and evidence as to whether or not the rule of law was applied fairly and justly, and appreciate it when it appears to have been done so.

  12. Too Much Drama says:

    Janet linn

    “Again, based on facts, not emotion or vague beliefs.”

    I would love for this to be true, but it isn’t and never has been. Just look at all the disagreements in Christianity. How many times have I heard arguments like, “we are a bible based…,” “are denomination has its roots in the early church…,” and so on.

    Perceptions and feelings are far more prevalent in decisions than facts and truth, consider the fall in the Garden of God and what 1 John says about our lusts. All driven on what humans perceive, feel and emotions, it’s who we are.

    True and facts are all too often in the eye of the beholder.

    Typically appeals are not based on a false conviction, but rather on a process which failed to provide due process to the defendant.

    Will this case be overturned? Maybe, but I’m not counting on it.

    Done with this thread we will survive this.

  13. Kevin H says:

    Thank you, Janet linn.

  14. Too Much Drama says:


    “Thank you, Janet linn.”

    Great technique!

    We will survive this.

  15. Janet Linn,BrideofChrist says:

    Too Much Drama, Yes, emotion and vague beliefs influence our culture, our politics, and our history. They have no weight in a court of law.

  16. Kevin H says:


    “The entire NYC venue, including the DA and Prosecutor were purposely placed to come against Trump.”

    Purposely placed by who? Biden? The Establishment? The Illuminati?

    All the more charges without substantiated evidence.

    And even if people were purposely put in place to “get Trump”, they brought forth not fabricated or exaggerated charges, but real charges of criminal wrongdoing committed by Trump himself, and proved them in a court of law.

    So for people to keep defending Trump by accusing corruption on all these people involved in the case – accusations which are happening everywhere all over the place in American Christianity – it is wrong and it is a terrible symptom of their idolization.

    Lastly, you say I am “bashing and grouping way too many fellow Christians together in their idolization of Trump”. I made it clear in my article that there are many Christians who have avoided this sin.

  17. Kevin H says:

    See this thread to see just a small snapshot of the voluminous amount of high profile Christians who are making charges of corruption but don’t provide any evidence to support their accusations. And the “everybody knows” rationale does not hold any weight to being actual evidence.

    This is sickening:

  18. Reuben says:

    100%, and not because I have a political dog in the hunt. I don’t vote for Capitalists. Thanks Kevin.

  19. Too Much Drama says:


    “Purposely placed by who? Biden? The Establishment? The Illuminati?”
    Please ease off, ignoring the obvious court shopping which goes on in this country is not a good showing by you.

    Janet linn:

    “They have no weight in a court of law.”

    Sorry not true and history of the Court System demonstrates this. Again the OJ Trial.

    You can deny this, but even the bible stories are filled with examples of heroes led by the emotions. We all have evil in our hearts from our youth; which is a fact.

    The legal system in the USA also tends to favor those who have the financial ability to hire a good lawyer.

    Which it were true that the justice system was blind.

  20. Kevin H says:


    No, I will not ease off. If you’re going to make charges, then back them up. Who placed this entire NYC venue in place just to get Trump? Who did it and how did they do it?

  21. Kevin H says:

    Thanks, Reuben.

  22. Alan says:

    The court system was corrupt without this. It has always been so. It is laced with human stain. Our appeal system sometimes remedies it. Going to court for custody or crimes is no place you want to find yourself. Money, special interests, political bias, injustice … never ends.

    It reflects us. So let’s get to that serious business of repentance. We are corrupt not they. We are partisan. We are compromised. We are ruinously divided. We are hopelessly entangled. May the LORD have mercy on us.

  23. Too Much Drama says:


    One last shot to your ideas.
    It seems you are pointing at Christian brothers and sisters and not the truth of the court system and in particular the NYC Trial.

    “See this thread to see just a small snapshot of the voluminous amount of high profile Christians who are making charges of corruption but don’t provide any evidence to support their accusations. And the “everybody knows” rationale does not hold any weight to being actual evidence.”

    Let me write it again, the NYC trail was not corrupt, it was prejudiced from the start against trump. There was no way he would be acquitted in NYC. Maybe you need to actually go and or listen to Alan Dershowitz, a man who would never vote for Trump.

    But I think you are pointing the finger at Christians here. And this is what you post is all about, not actual legal process in this case.

  24. Too Much Drama says:


    Gee wiz, “Who placed this entire NYC venue in place just to get Trump? Who did it and how did they do it?”

    Shall we start with how Brag and James got elected to their positions and what was their prime promise if elected! The Head Prosecutor, the Judge and his prejudice’s and family support, the jury comes from a community which voted against Trump in a majority way, the charges were risen from the dead… do you want more?

    Listen to Alan D, and learn something before laying out your emotional arguments against fellow Christians.

  25. Too Much Drama says:


    “I don’t vote for Capitalists.”

    Calling you on this, name one in recent history.

    Considering how much money the Government has spent to prop up the economy in the last 30, no 50 years (even Reagan,) name one true capitalist on the list.

    I can’t think of any.


  26. Kevin H says:


    You may be saying that the NYC trial was not corrupt, but tons of other Christians are doing so. That is why I provided that thread. I’m actually supporting the charges I’m making.

    And, yes, I am pointing my finger at Christians who idolize politics and particularly Trump. It is wrong and it needs to be repented of. However, I am also using this trial to point out their sinful idolization – both that they are idolizing a man who is a criminal and also because they are making wrongful accusations of a legal process and the people involved in the legal process that they cannot back up. Just like your accusation that the whole NYC venue was purposefully put in place to get Trump that you are not backing up with any kind of evidence.

    The heart of the post is about wrongful Christian behavior, the mechanism used to show this wrongful behavior is the trial.

  27. Kevin H says:


    “Just like your accusation that the whole NYC venue was purposefully put in place to get Trump that you are not backing up with any kind of evidence.”

    Even what you provided as “evidence” as I typed the above comment is not evidence at all. Again, the question is, “WHO PURPOSEFULLY PUT THEM IN PLACE?”

    Saying that some people got in place by a free election and pointing to the supposed prejudices of others does not at all back up the accusation you made.

  28. Jean says:

    “The entire NYC venue, including the DA and Prosecutor were purposely placed to come against Trump. “

    There seems to be a measure of indignation about the venue and court.

    Is everyone aware that the crime took place in NYC, by a NY resident whose company was domiciled in NYC?

    In our criminal justice system, a defendant is tried by a jury of his peers, i.e., in this case, a NYC jury.

    Some of you seem to suggest that only by giving the defendant special treatment would he get due process. Why should he get special treatment?

    The evidence was overwhelming. The facts admitted were damning. Had it not been for the delay tactics and attempts at jury tampering and witness intimidation, the verdict would have been in months ago.

  29. Too Much Drama says:


    ” It is wrong and it needs to be repented of. However, I am also using this trial to point out their sinful idolization”

    I do agree with you that Trump is a despicable person and never should be idolized. It reminds me of when Israel called for a king and they got Saul.

    However, if the choices are Trump or the continuation of the Biden Administration and the travesty of policies and lack of morality they have openly brought to the White House and USA, I will vote for Trump (who is non-capitalist, this for Reuben 🙂 )

    But that is a whole other topic.

    ” Just like your accusation that the whole NYC venue was purposefully put in place to get Trump that you are not backing up with any kind of evidence.”

    I gave you the start of the evidence now go and do your homework in as unbiased way as you possibly can. Listen and read Alan D that would be a start. It’s up to you!

    “The truth is out there.” ;-(

  30. Too Much Drama says:


    Let’s be real and honest (if we can), “Is everyone aware that the crime took place in NYC, by a NY resident whose company was domiciled in NYC?”

    Of course it was and the charge was shopped. Too much evidence to say otherwise.

    “The evidence was overwhelming. The facts admitted were damning.”

    Did Trump pay this out? Of course he did. But was it a felony, a misdemeanor, or would any other person have been charged with this crime?

    Why Trump, why this year and why don’t you ask yourself these questions?

    Too much time and drama now on this thread. Yep I contributed to it. 🙂

    Not defending Trump ay all BTW.

  31. Reuben says:

    I would be glad to hear you out, Too Much Drama…

  32. Kevin H says:


    Your “evidence” you provided does not in any way address the accusations you made. It is non-sensical.

    “Do your homework” is just as much of a cop out as “Everybody knows”. The onus is on the one bringing charges to substantiate them. To tell the other to find the substantiation or that they should just know in the first place because “everybody knows”, is both lazy and disingenuous.

  33. Jean says:


    “Of course it was and the charge was shopped. Too much evidence to say otherwise.”

    I don’t know what you mean by “the charge was shopped.”

    The payoffs and the business records took place in NYC. The fraudulent tax deductions were taken in NYC.

    I don’t know how the venue could have been anywhere else.

  34. greg says:

    Lifelong democrat, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley (among many other experts) strongly disagrees with Kevin H.

  35. Reuben says:

    Out of curiosity, what does Constitutional Law have to do with the felonies?

  36. Reuben says:

    Edit: these felonies?

  37. Greg says:

    Hi Reuben, He is a well respected expert on law and the judicial system in general. From his wiki ‘…Jonathan Turley is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. A professor at George Washington University Law School, he has testified in United States congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues…’

  38. Kevin H says:


    So Turley and all these other supposed law experts believe the jury was rigged, the judge was corrupt, and this was all just a political witch hunt by a weaponized justice system? I’d love to see evidence of such.

  39. Reuben says:

    With all due respect, it’s a little like saying “I am a computer engineer and I affirm the earth is flat.” Constitutional Law has nothing to add to what happened here. I don’t see this as a statutory law case. I’m sure the guy can argue constitutional and statutory law just fine.

  40. Bob Sweat says:

    The comments here prove a point that Trump made months ago. He said something to the effect that he could go shoot somebody in broad daylight and people would still vote for him.

  41. Reuben says:

    Bob Sweat, agreed. Nothing can move Trump supporters. This just fuels the base.

  42. Alan says:


    You cannot see any bias in this process or outcome? And you cannot see any basis for someone to see political motivations in this outcome? And you cannot see any relevance to the idea that the person Trump is so odious that the prosecution had to stretch case law to come up with this very strange manner of charging a crime? No problems in this case are obvious to you?

  43. Too Much Drama says:


    I’m glad neither you nor I are lawyers, however you wrote this, “Constitutional Law has nothing to add to what happened here.”

    It appears part of Trump’s appeal will be on violation of “Constitutional Rights” by the Judge. Many legit high end lawyers, including Alan D who helped get OJ acquitted, say his rights were violated under the Constitution.

    And that is all I know about the subject. Did some homework.

    Writing about Trump sure builds the hit count. Brings in a lot of advertising revenue for CNN, CNBC, Fox and others.

  44. Reuben says:

    Albeit a high profile case, how is it different from any other? Looking at this from the cheap seats, I admit, because I have no vested interest, I don’t see why this is such an affront?

    Is this because the news sensationalized it to death? I don’t pay attention to CNN and FOX or any other domestic news agency, so there’s that. From the cheap seats, the pushback on these 36 or however many verdicts come from an emotionally fueled hatred for the “other guy”.

  45. Too Much Drama says:


    “I don’t know what you mean by “the charge was shopped.”

    They looked for a crime they could resurrect.

    In this case the Statute had run out and Bragg was trying to do what he promised.

    By Gregory Germain, Professor of Law Syracuse University,

    Great article from the beginning of the trial, worthy read of all the questions addressed now that the jury is out.

    “Trump has never been charged with a crime for making the hush money payments or arranging with AMI to catch and kill stories. The underlying charges were investigated by the US Attorney General’s office, and they decided not to bring criminal charges against Trump.

    There has been some suggestion that the hush money payments might somehow violate federal election laws, although I have never understood how using one’s own money to pay for the non-disclosure of embarrassing allegations would violate the election laws, which are primarily concerned with the solicitation and use of campaign contributions by third parties. Even if the government wanted to charge Trump now for violating the election law in 2016, those charges would likely be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.”

    “There is also a question regarding the statute of limitations applicable to these claims. The statute of limitations on a misdemeanor in New York is 2 years, and would have expired long ago. NY Crim Proc 30.10(2)(c). The statute of limitations on “other felonies” is 5 years. NY Crim Proc. § 30.10(2)(b). The acts occurred in 2016 and 2017, and the District Attorney delayed filing the charges for several years. The District Attorney has argued that the statutes of limitations were tolled during COVID, or that they were extended when Trump left the state. These issues need to be addressed by the court clearly.”

  46. Reuben says:

    Too Much Drama, I make no claims. I read about this stuff from BBC now and then. Maybe AlJazeera. They cover it. I’m no lawyer, no constitutional law expert, no master of anything but commercial and industrial HVAC. What I see here is people losing their minds because it’s Trump.

  47. Too Much Drama says:


    “…the pushback on these 36 or however many verdicts come from an emotionally fueled hatred for the “other guy”.”


  48. R'as al Ghul says:

    All the Trump fans and supporters (especially Christians) decrying this verdict are no different than the 1st Century Jews asking for Barabbas. The vast majority of the Christians in the US want Barabbas and their true lord and savior is Trump (a fighter, a bruiser, someone who refuses to be steamrolled, etc. – just like Trump) like the 1st Century AD Jews. And we all know how well that turned out for those that picked Barabbas 40 years later. And I will be a member of Legio X Fretensis when it happens.

  49. Dread says:

    LOL Ghul Michael already beat you to that analogy. I don’t want Trump I’ll go crazy listening to him and watching the left wretch hairballs for 4 years. I just don’t want what we have. Not one more minute of Biden the apostle of progressivism.

  50. Kevin H says:


    I stated up front in the article itself that some people very well could have political motivations. The same would go for biases.

    However, that does not change the fact that there are no credible evidences that jury was rigged or the judge is corrupt or that this was all just one big sham of a trial. I am standing against these mostly baseless and likely sinful accusations coming from many, many Christians.

    As for the stretching of case law, that is possible, but I am no legal expert and so I do not offer strong opinions on such. Trump will get his appeal to contest this and I leave it to the courts to decide. Again, however, regardless of that outcome, it does not change the assertions I have made. That only potentially changes Trump’s guilt from a felony level to a misdemeanor level, but doesn’t change the fact that evidence was rightly presented proving legal wrongdoing by Trump, with no evidence that the legal process was corruptly executed.

  51. R'as al Ghul says:


    Maybe if the 2 parties didn’t bother to choose a giant douche and a turd sandwich (HT: South Park) for the past several election cycles we would not be in this mess. Which is why I have not voted for either party for POTUS in almost 20 years.

  52. Greg says:

    Kevin H,

    ‘… there are no credible evidences that jury was rigged or the judge is corrupt or that this was all just one big sham of a trial….’

    Does the opinion of legal experts (Turley, Dershowitz, count as evidence?

  53. Alan says:

    So what has your underwear in a wad is hyperbole!

    Like Xenia unloaded.

    Ok fair enough… and thanks for being reasonable.

    Now can we get back to repenting?.

    All of us because this damn stuff is corrupting our souls.

  54. Dread says:

    I had to google R’as al Ghul

    Came up with Ra’s al Ghu – The Demon’s Head leader of the League of Assassins?
    You ripping that off?

    Dread Confusion

  55. R'as al Ghul says:


    Actually my spelling is the correct one.

  56. You Got To Be Kidding says:

    Dershowitz? One of OJ’s attorneys, A great defender of corruption.

  57. Josh says:

    Funny how it’s “Law and Order” until you are subject to that law and order, and then it’s “the justice system is broken”. Hmmm.

  58. Reuben says:


  59. Josh says:

    Reuben! My man!

  60. Michael says:

    This is why I read the Dispatch…I concur with it all:

    MAY 31, 2024

    “This is all a long-winded way of saying in the matter of the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, I want to make the case for blaming the victim.

    Blaming the victim is one of those things “everyone knows” we’re never supposed to do. Interestingly, this is not some ancient biblical or Thomistic injunction. The phrase “blaming the victim” is barely a half-century old. The phrase was almost nonexistent before the 1971 book Blaming the Victim by William Ryan. Angry at the Moynihan Report, Ryan argued that Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s diagnosis of family breakdown in the African American community as the driver of urban crime and dysfunction was outrageous. It was a seminal text of the “root causes” arguments we are so familiar with today. It took on added ideological baggage in the context of rape and sexual assault. And—let me just say—rightly so. Blaming women for being attacked because they dress provocatively or get drunk in unwise situations or locations is morally reprehensible. But, as the curmudgeonly father of a young woman, I feel compelled to say that this doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t be mindful of their circumstances. The matter of blame— morally and most emphatically legally—should and must reside squarely on the criminal.

    But let’s set intergenerational poverty and sexual predation aside. As a matter of real life, we all can think of circumstances where we, or people we know, went looking for trouble. I think most reasonable people can hold two independent ideas simultaneously. The person who hurls a string of F-bombs at a cop and gets a beating as a result was behaving stupidly. Indeed, it’s fair to say—not as a matter of law, but of common sense—that he was “asking for it.” But we can also believe that the police officer should not have beaten the victim. We have all sorts of moral intuitions of this sort. The teenager who thinks he’s good at parkour was an idiot for jumping from rooftop to rooftop, and it’s tragic that he fell to his death. But it is not as tragic as the teen who is struck by a stray bullet while doing her homework. The hiker who is mauled by a bear for trying to take a selfie with some cubs does not arouse the same sympathy as the visitor mauled by a bear at a zoo because the zookeeper left the enclosure unlocked.

    Donald Trump had sex with an adult film actress while his third wife was nursing their newborn child. He had an affair with a former Playboy model. He denies this, but as far as I can tell no one else does. Even Trump’s staunchest defenders don’t try—at least not very hard—to do so. He falsely recorded his effort to pay off to Stormy Daniels as legal expenses. He spent his entire professional life abusing the legal system, stiffing contractors out of their fees by threatening to bankrupt them in frivolous legal actions. As a landlord, he violated fair housing laws. As a presidential candidate, he promised to put his business interests in a blind trust, but once elected he didn’t and monetized the presidency for his own benefit. Also as a presidential candidate, he led chants of “Lock her up!” about his political opponent. He invited Russia to release information about her. He was impeached (the first time) for abusing his power in an attempt to intimidate a foreign leader to investigate Joe Biden for corruption. When he tried to steal the 2020 election, he pressured his own Justice Department to allege crimes to buttress his false claims that the election was illegitimate. This was also around the time he encouraged a mob that visited riotous violence upon the Capitol in an effort to intimidate Congress out of fulfilling its constitutional duties. He’s promised to pardon people who beat up cops on his behalf. He calls them “hostages” and plays their warbling rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” before his rallies, like some weak-tea Americanized version of the “Horst-Wessel-Lied.” He defended the mob that chanted “Hang Mike Pence.” He’s argued—through lawyers in court—and in his own words that he should be immune to any criminal charges that stem from actions he took as president, and to a certain extent, as ex-president. He’s vowed that when he’s president again he reserves the right to do what he’s outraged is being done to him. I could go on, but you get the picture.

    Now, I want to be clear: Except for the misdemeanor of false records, none of these things are proven crimes and some of them are not crimes at all. Contrary to a lot of talking heads, politicians are not legally barred from trying to “influence an election.” That is what running for office is. Nor is paying off parties to adulterous engagements illegal. If it were, I have no doubt many politicians would be in the clink.

    But as a matter of common sense, karma, moral intuition, or whatever term you like, I am utterly incapable of mustering the slightest sympathy for Donald Trump. If I were to publish a dictionary of common phrases, I would put his picture next to the entry on “F—k Around and Find Out.”
    His entire life has been one extended experiment with testing, violating, and abusing the rules—some legal, some moral, some normative—for his own benefit. The system isn’t supposed to apply to him. This, in almost dialectic fashion, has invited responses that also violate the rules of the system. I’ve been making this point for nearly a decade now. Trump’s violations of norms have elicited countless violations of norms from his opponents. That’s what happens when you break the rules: You give permission to others to break them, too.

    The amazing thing is how people go blind to the rule-breaking of their own team. Sen. Mike Lee thinks that the prosecution of Donald Trump is an affront to all he holds dear, invoking A Man for All Seasons with the Democrats as William Roper, defenestrating the rule of law not for Wales, “But for Biden.” Trump’s myriad transgressions seem to be utterly invisible to him.

    But as I said, we can hold two ideas simultaneously. I think this case against Donald Trump should never have been brought. As a matter of law—not karma—Alvin Bragg is in the wrong. I don’t necessarily believe that he thinks he’s breaking the rules, but there’s a lot of that sort of motivated reasoning going on with rule-breakers these days. This case would not have been brought against anyone but Trump, as Elie Honig and others have argued. I am unconvinced by the argument he committed a felony. I don’t blame the jurors for reaching that conclusion. I might have reached the same given the instructions of the judge, the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the abysmal defense mounted by the Trump team. But I still think the verdict is wrong.

    This brings up another reason to blame Trump. He didn’t let his lawyers mount the sort of defense that might have gotten him acquitted. Refusing to give an inch, he wouldn’t let them concede the affairs, or pursue a strategy that didn’t align with what he thinks are his political and psychological interests. “Deny everything,” and “always punch back,” are the Roy Cohn rules Trump lives by, and why not? They’ve worked for him until now.

    And they may continue to work for him. One of the problems with the backlash that Trump invites from his enemies is that it often elicits yet another backlash against them. The flimsiness of this case is causing some people—and nearly all elected Republicans and most conservative pundits—to rally to Trump. It’s not at all far-fetched to imagine that Trump comes out of this stronger. Or he might not. No one really knows. But the fantasy that this will be the thing that rids us of Trump has taken many forms and has never paid off.

    I have no problem with reasonable criticism of this case and the verdict. Why would I? I agree with much of it. Where I part company is with the idea that this proves Donald Trump was “right” about the system. He’s like a human monkey wrench hurling himself into the gears of the system and then, when mangled by it, crying about how he’s a victim and that his victimhood proves the system never worked.

    It is abhorrent and reprehensible to call this case a Stalinesque show trial. If you know anything about Stalin’s Great Terror and say this, you are whitewashing profound evil and slandering the United States. In Stalin’s show trials, the accused were tortured. Their families were tortured. Victims were threatened with death—and the deaths of their families—if they didn’t sign and repeat false confessions. Rep. Nancy Mace plays a similar game. “There’s no difference: Putin silences Navalny, Biden’s DOJ targets Trump. The left’s outrage over Navalny is hypocritical as they cheer on Biden’s tyranny.”
    If you know anything about Putin or Navalny and can say, with a straight face, “There’s no difference” the best one can say in your defense is that you are a staggering idiot. I don’t think Mace deserves such generosity. This is not like Castro’s Cuba, as Marco Rubio says either.

    It is entirely defensible to say that this verdict undermines faith and confidence in the judicial system. That is exactly what I thought it would do, and so I was a skeptic of bringing it all along. But you know what else undermines faith and confidence in the judicial system? Claiming that we are no different than Stalin’s or Putin’s Russia.

    Our legal system has never been perfect. It’s produced a fair number of miscarriages of justice. But normally, politicians—particularly ones who claim to be conservatives and admirers of the American experiment—do not respond to such mistakes by defecating from a great height on their country. But they are willing to do so, not for Wales, but for Trump.

    I bring this up in part to answer some questions posed by readers, but mostly to make a more relevant point. I think it’s fine to be angry about the Bragg case. I also think it’s fine to think justice was done, or that it will be done pending appeal. Reasonable people can disagree. But I think moments like this demand a little of that superfluousness. Watching cable news and perusing social media last night, I felt utterly out of step with the defining political passions of this moment. It was only when I watched the livestream of Advisory Opinions that I heard anyone acknowledge the conflicting truths of this case, the competing shades of gray that define the reality and the facts.

    You don’t owe anyone your passion. It’s fine to be loyal to a party or even a politician. But you shouldn’t relinquish the keys to your supply of anger or righteousness. The loudest voices make the same error, but from different directions: They invest in Donald Trump the future of America’s soul. But America is about more than Donald Trump. If he loses in his battles, it will not be proof that America is irremissibly lost. And if he wins, it will not be proof that America is irremissibly lost. Both visions are predicated on a lie about this country and how it works. But that lie can become true only if enough people decide to believe it. So don’t give the monkey wrench that power. “

  61. Captain Kevin says:

    “He’s like a human monkey wrench hurling himself into the gears of the system and then, when mangled by it, crying about how he’s a victim and that his victimhood proves the system never worked.” Yep!

  62. Greg says:

    “… This case would not have been brought against anyone but Trump, as Elie Honig and others have argued. I am unconvinced by the argument he committed a felony…”

    This is the real issue. The system is being weaponized by one political party against another. It doesn’t matter which party you identify with. This does not bode well for the future. Pandora’s box is officially open.

  63. Janet linn, BrideofChrist says:

    Trump opened it.

  64. Bob Sweat says:

    Weaponized and rigged 🙄

  65. Kevin H says:


    Yes, the argument can be made that there was extra effort or initiative to bring this case against Trump that likely would not have been made against most others.

    However, to go from that to the accusation that the “system” is “weaponized” by all one side against the other is a huge and largely unsupportable leap. What about Trump’s classified documents case, the case out of all of these where it is most obvious that Trump broke the law? The judge in that case, hand-picked and appointed by Trump, keeps delaying the case without giving any substantial reasons to do so. Is that all part of the “weaponization” of the “system” against Trump? Of course not, because that is the justice system working of a circumstance in Trump’s favor.

    The bottom line is that both sides of the political aisle try to work the “system” to their advantage at times. But to constantly accuse only one side of “weaponizing” it in efforts to try to support or protect a highly corrupt and immoral man is shameful and this is the type of behavior by Christians that needs to stop.

  66. Janet Linn,BrideofChrist says:

    I read this article today in Time magazine entitled ‘Donald Trump’s Hush Money Trial is a Referendum on Truth’ From the article – “As a former prosecutor, I was trained to argue cases zealously, but to accept a jury’s verdict with respect, even if it was not the decision I had sought. Reasonable minds can disagree, but it is more important to uphold public confidence in our legal system than to obtain any particular outcome. To support our legal system means that we focus on fair process, and tolerate decisions with which we disagree. Otherwise, our criminal justice system would fall apart. But throughout this trial, Trump and his supporters have groomed the public to distrust the fairness of the trial…” This reminds me of Trump telling his supporters in 2020 that if he lost, it would mean the election was rigged, before the election had even happened. How can our republic survive the undermining of it’s core institutions, as Trump is doing?

  67. Kevin H says:

    And what Trump tried to do to “weaponize” the justice system to overturn the 2020 election was far and away the most harmful “weaponizing” of the justice system that we have experienced in our current times.

  68. Kevin H says:

    Yes, Janet Linn, it is all conditioning by Trump and his sycophants to keep his cult strong. Those who are engulfed in a cult have the hardest time of all people to see anything objectively outside of what they are being conditioned to believe.

  69. Alan says:

    Who wrote that Dispatch editorial?

  70. Eric says:

    “Yet, if you do not like our system, please suggest one that would be more fair and credible, keeping in mind that any system is going to involve imperfect and fallen human beings.”
    In Australia (and other countries) the systems are similar except that public prosecutors are non-partisan.
    Also, the Justices of High Court aren’t known for being partisan, in fact most people couldn’t name any of them (and they retire at 70).

  71. PM says:

    Jonah Goldberg wrote it.

    To someone suggesting that the OPINION of Alan Dershowitz, Turley or any other lawyer is evidence the system was rigged or weaponized…c’mon, man. That isn’t how evidence works.

  72. Alan says:

    Yes Jonah hates Trump I wondered if it was him.

  73. Alan says:

    Though I must say Jonah has higher goals than establishing his hatred of Trump. I think the same is probably true of Kevin.

    Despite Michael’s pessimism this has been a reasonable exchange. Still, if these are our only choices I will vote for the felon over the other. Like or hate it, behind it is my sad contention that whatever 4 years of MAGA might bring they are not as damning as what partnering with its opposite has and will continue.

    NowTHAT is the divide among us. That IS the actual divide.

    Am I a christian nationalist. I may be neither. I judge not myself. But I will join Kevin’s call for repentance. Not of my stated position here but any notion that such things can bring righteousness. Or that by these means we shall see the kingdom of God.

  74. Alan says:

    What all politics does essentially, is partner decent people with the devil. Perhaps democracy is not fit for followers of Jesus at all. It compromises us terribly.

    A king would be nice, though by some people’s eschatology even if Jesus were our king we would eventually seek to overthrow him.

    Yes repent we must!!!

  75. Michael says:

    ” Like or hate it, behind it is my sad contention that whatever 4 years of MAGA might bring they are not as damning as what partnering with its opposite has and will continue.
    NowTHAT is the divide among us. That IS the actual divide.”

    I think it is….though it baffles me how one could come to the conclusion that open defiance of the Constitution will not ruin what’s left..

    I’m teaching through John…or really learning through John…His kingdom is not of this world. I’m tired of this one…

  76. Duane Arnold says:

    ” Like or hate it, behind it is my sad contention that whatever 4 years of MAGA might bring they are not as damning as what partnering with its opposite has and will continue.”

    Some made a similar bet on a failed Austrian painter who was also a convicted felon. The result was the death of over 70 million in a worldwide calamity…

  77. Xenia says:

    As I said earlier, or more or less said, Trump got what he deserved. The means by which this justice was dished our seems suspish but he still got what he deserved.

    I do think the trial was rigged. Sorry, not changing my mind on that. In banana republics one’s political opponents often wind up in jail. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that Trump has been a career white-collar criminal for most of his life and got what he deserved. If God, in His wisdom, chose to use this means to bring down a corrupt, non-repentant scam artist, then so be it.

    I hope I don’t get what I deserve.

  78. Xenia says:

    Hitler has entered the chat….

  79. Alan says:

    “It’s not the devil at the door. It’s just your shadow on floor.”

  80. Too Much Drama says:

    Duane’s comment just destroyed the civility and actual intelligent exchange that was going on in this thread. It also reveals a deep prejudice on his part that completely affects how he sees the topic.

    Duane you crushed the thread. Very saddening!

    Thank you Xenia for your comment.

  81. bob1 says:

    Hitler? Wow, what a shock.

    “It’s remarkable to watch the luminaries of “law and order” contort themselves to undermine Trump’s conviction, dues for what Cohen called a ‘dumpster cult.’ The party of law and order evidently doesn’t like any law it didn’t order.”

    “The jurors were not Trump’s peers because Trump has no peer in mendacity. But it was great to see the 12 just say no, you don’t slime your way into the presidency by having your creepy gofer pay off a porn star you slept with while your wife was home with a newborn and call it a legal expense.”

    “At Nativity grade school, we grew up steeped in the lore — and gore — of martyrs. For their brave deeds and words, these men and women were stoned, crucified, beheaded, stripped of all their skin, shot with arrows and cooked alive on a red-hot griddle.

    So I’m a little surprised my siblings would somehow put Donald Trump in those martyrs’ sainted company.”

    — Maureen Dowd, NY Times

  82. bob1 says:

    I’m a big Neil Young fan, so I love this headline WRT the Trump crap:

    “34 and there’s so much more”

  83. Michael says:

    Too Much Drama,

    You will speak respectfully to Duane or you won’t speak here.

    Duane is hardly the first to observe that the rise in authoritarianism around the world and Trump’s disdain of constitutional limits cause us (or should cause us) to reflect on what has happened in history.

    Historians have been warning us about such for a few years now…I listen to historians.

    Your mileage may vary.

  84. Dread says:

    “Tell me that you hate me, Yeah
    I’ve heard it all before
    There’s a life here for the taking
    Is it mine or is it yours
    All I am is what you make me
    Your on both sides of the wall
    It’s not the devil that you’re facing
    It’s your shadow on the wall!”

    Hitler is not the problem

    I am

    Repentance is still the unanswered call

  85. Xenia says:

    Dread is sounding very Orthodox today: When you see an evil, look to yourself to see what you did to contribute to it and repent. (Lots of evil to go around in this story.)

    We should listen to Dread.

  86. Alan Hawkins says:

    Godwin strikes again. It’s the law.

  87. Alan says:

    Actually Kevin called for repentance and since this thread began I have been heeding his call. That is a very keen Orthodox value. I continue to see increased Orthodox presence among us. Even in strange places like the podcast, The Crucible.

    Repentance Dread

  88. Kevin H says:


    I appreciate the focus on repentance as that was actually the main point of the post.

    Earlier you said we were divided on the point of voting for Trump. I agree we are divided there, although I believe such division can be amicable. I think your decision to vote for Trump is lamentable, however, I do not think simply the decision to vote for Trump necessitates repentance.

    My call for repentance, while it can forthrightly be taken to examine every area of one’s life, was directed to the wrongful idolization of politics and Trump in particular. Although not definitive, such actions I pointed to such as saying the jury was rigged or the judge is corrupt, with no corroborating evidence to support such assertions, can be indicative of that idolatry.

  89. Alan says:

    I understood you Kevin

    It’s just our shadow on the floor.

    Repentance means I am the problem.

    I most definitely am.

  90. Xenia says:

    Listen folks. I don’t mind some civil discussion concerning the Verdict, with pros and cons and ambivalence from all sides but what I don’t appreciate is the suggestion that we are idolators or Nazis for thinking Trump’s trial was orchestrated by partisans.

  91. Tom Much Drama says:


    “Too Much Drama,

    You will speak respectfully to Duane or you won’t speak here.”

    If this is your definition of not being respectful when a comment is made criticizing the comparison to Nazis and Hitler, well if so your definition is off the mark. And for some reason when it comes to certain things or people you are not applying on a manner equal to your critiques of certain CC and others.

    I’m also sure Duane is a mature enough man to stand up and defend his own comments. He has done so in the past without needing you to defend him.

    As always it is your blog and you declare the rules and judgments. Be careful you aren’t the very thing you criticize.

  92. Duane Arnold says:

    If history has shown us anything, it is that we would be wise to listen to what people actually say and the actions they undertake. I care very little about what happens to Trump as a result of this verdict. I do care about what is said and the actions that are undertaken on his behalf and how that will affect our nation in the future.

    “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Maya Angelou

  93. Reuben says:

    Maya has been quoted before. I agree. Plus I absolutely love her.

  94. Bob Sweat says:

    Well spoken Duane.

  95. Michael says:

    Tom Much Drama,

    This isn’t a church.
    It’s a site I pay for and run.
    Don’t cross me again…I have little patience for lectures or your judgments.

  96. Too Much Drama says:


    Now that is a whole lot better and more interesting than pulling out the Nazi card and Hitler.

    Thank you.

    I have said it over and over again that I do not like Trump nor Biden. They are both narcissists, clearly immoral men and lawbreakers. The only difference between the two is Biden was supposed to be a public servant, while Trump has always worked the business system to achieve his goals.

    I made the assumption, maybe incorrectly, PP was about finding truth amongst Christianity and in particular the CC brand and those like them. Time and time again PP devolves into a Trump show. There seems to be no escape from the obsession this Nation has with him.

    Leave Trump out in all ways/everything and stick to talking about living like followers of Jesus. Political leaders will come and go, but God’s Kingdom is forever.

    Again, thank you for the good follow up!

  97. Too Miuch Drama says:


    “It’s a site I pay for and run. Don’t cross me again…I have little patience for lectures or your judgments.”

    Why do you act like CC in this? If you can’t take occasional heat then please make this a private site with only those you approve of can write.

  98. Michael says:

    Too Much Drama,

    I don’t think the Hitler comparisons are ridiculous when we are talking about a man who has declared his desire to be a dictator .

    It is exactly what Trump could become…

    I would love to never have his name foul my mouth…but he has changed evangelicalism and the country like no one else in recent history.

  99. Michael says:

    Too Much Drama,

    If you don’t like the way I run the place…you have a mouse that will take you to happier places.

    I simply said you will treat my people with respect…if that is a problem…it will be your problem alone.

  100. Duane Arnold says:


    Trump has made himself the issue with his frequent references to fascist sources and authoritarian models. He has done this himself and, I believe, the country has paid a price. To ignore what he himself has said is a fool’s game. Christians in Germany in the 1930s how to make similar judgments about what they were hearing. It resulted in a split among the faithful with some, such as in the confessing church, believing that they needed to separate themselves from what was taking place in the nation and the wider church. I would like to think that we would not make the same mistake in our own time, but I have my doubts especially when I consider the evangelical response to Trump.

    My reply to you above in no way negates my earlier post which I still believe to be true.

  101. Duane Arnold says:


    By the way, you might do well to read the Barmen Declaration which is posted on this site…

  102. Too Much Drama says:

    Michael I wasn’t unhappy at all, and I do not nor show “disrespect” for Duane either. I do have no problem saying his comment was out of line for the thread.

    There’s a lot of very opinionated posters here and if you want only those who agree with you on Trump then say so.

    Do you really hold the Trump will become a “dictator” Trump possibility? Do you really believe the USA and its system of Government would even allow such a thing? I don’t believe either will or can happen. I also don’t think he will win the Presidency in November (yep, contrarian with the current polls)..

    Enough of Trump and politics, please! It’s your blog.

  103. Too Much Drama says:


    I know all about it.

    The only source of revelation is the Word of God — Jesus Christ. Any other possible sources (earthly powers, for example) will not be accepted.
    Jesus Christ is the only Lord of all aspects of personal life. There should be no other authority.
    The message and order of the church should not be influenced by the current political convictions.
    The church should not be ruled by a leader (“Führer”). There is no hierarchy in the church (Mt 20, 25f).
    The state should not fulfill the task of the church and vice versa. State and church are both limited to their own business.
    Therefore, the Barmen Declaration rejects (i) the subordination of the Church to the state (8.22–3) and (ii) the subordination of the Word and Spirit to the Church.

    If you think this is a possibility under Trump, then I think you are wrong.

    Thank you for the comment, I do my homework.

    Not losing sleep over Trump.

  104. Duane Arnold says:


    If you don’t believe it’s possible… Have I got a reading list for you…

  105. Dan from Georgia says:

    TMD, you said…

    “There’s a lot of very opinionated posters here and if you want only those who agree with you on Trump then say so.”

    I’ve been on this blog long enough to let you know this blog is not an echo chamber re: Trump, and I have been on here 10+ years.

  106. Dan from Georgia says:

    I do have to say, though, that many/most blogs that deal at all with politics will typically gather similar thinkers…and not because the host demands it. I like this blog because the vast majority of people here are good thinkers and not just shrills looking to lob political bombs and then run away.

  107. Michael says:

    I am at about all the Trump I can handle…the court case needed to be addressed….we’ve done that now.

  108. Alan says:

    Plenty to repent about here.

    The Godwin Law held up in every way.

  109. Duane Arnold says:


    Sometimes stereotypes are true…

  110. Duane Arnold says:

    No repentance of truth…

  111. pstrmike says:

    I sure hope my church doesn’t sound like this thread tomorrow…………….

  112. Alan says:

    If it does call them to repentance.

    Just preach Jesus.

    It wasn’t too bad really.

  113. Michael says:

    I think I’m about done with this subject.

    My last thought is about the pastor I had in the late 80’s-early 90’s.

    He was a good man…the kind of pastor I aspired to be, but never was.

    We were Assemblies of God folk…holiness people.

    I know that my pastor wouldn’t have even allowed talk about a vulgarian like Trump. wouldn’t have voted for him for superintendent of sewers or anything else.

    Nobody would talk about someone like him….except in disgust.
    Such would have been true in any conservative, evangelical church.

    Yet, here we are.

    According to much of the church gathered here, history doesn’t apply to him, the law doesn’t apply, the Scriptures don’t apply and out of 350,000,000 people the king of vice is the only one who can save us from…vice.

    I hope you get your way and I’m in a safe place when you do.

  114. Linn says:


    What I find really disconcerting, and is reflected in some of the comments, is how emotionally invested people are in Trump. I was listening to the news this morning, and a person referred to Trump as “my president.” It’s scary.

  115. Alan says:

    I don’t think any comments here reflect emotional investment in Trump at all. The emotion is mostly here vested within hatred of him. The question for us is whether there is enough commonality within our Gospel to build a world together.

    I think there is because our interests are in the Gospel. My consistent posting here has been that WE are the problem. That must not prevail. Or as I have invoked words of a recent song, “it’s not the devil at the door its just our shadow on the floor”

    The question is can we repent enough to do some good together in this hour. I think we all agree that tyranny is the potential enemy.

  116. pstrmike says:

    “ The question for us is whether there is enough commonality within our Gospel to build a world together.”

    Good question. It’s an answer I’ve wrestled with for about eight to ten years. I haven’t come to a conclusion yet. What I do know is that if we are fully committed to “build“ something, it will require sacrifice and the setting aside of our pet doctrines, ideologies and dogmas. Perhaps if we are able to do that we will realize that those things were not nearly as important as we thought. In doing so, we might attain the clarity to see who the real anti-christs are.

  117. Alan says:

    Good word pastor.

  118. Michael says:


    If I let myself be, I’m terrified.

    I don’t scare easily.

    I was up all night ruminating again about it all…the clarity for me is in realizing that Trump is the apex of the kind of man evangelicals have always loved as a leader…and the kind of man I’ve lost everything fighting.

    My history here was all about fighting and exposing guys who were wolves…Christians in name only and only for the sake of power and money.

    The real fight, I realize now, was against people who love wolves.

    Two of those “leaders” that come to my mind quickly are simply evil…one continues unabated and the other will start another church the day he knows I’m dead…and he will have massive success.

    We live in a complex and dangerous world…for America to continue to be America it will require leaders with great character and intelligence and yes, at least informed by the biblical ethics that undergird us at our best.

    There are none of those in sight…but we will hand the reigns to someone who will become a tyrant, who already has weakened democracy to the breaking point under the weight of his lies.

    The Jews will not be the target of this freak…the “confessing church” and those who believe in the ideals of a liberal democracy will be.

    I am not afraid for me…but I’m terrified for the young ones I love.

    I don’t believe that we will survive the next few years as a nation and if we do, the days of the church being viable will end anyway.

    Real prophets tried and like real prophets usually are, they were ignored and hated.

    They will go silent now…except for a few unfortunate ones who God calls to witness amidst the carnage.

    There will always be a remnant.

    In a few days, I will move to room in the country…I will tend fruit trees and cats and pray that His kingdom come and His will be done…understanding that the fire is necessary to prepare for the last eternal garden.

  119. Dan from Georgia says:

    I envy you in a way Michael…not sure how long I have left her on this side, but would love to spend my remaining time tending to things that grow and growl (our two dogs). In the meantime I have to put up with miscreants and bad actors. And myself.

  120. Michael says:


    My problem is that I’m always compelled to do something or say something instead of just living in peace.

  121. Dan from Georgia says:

    It’s a hard choice. I started this weekend intending on not doing anything politics/Trump related, and ended up spending a lot of unnecessary emotional and mental energy keeping myself from not going down that road…repeatedly. Exhausting. Art and music are my balm and therapy….need to devote more time there.

  122. pstrmike says:

    Not a word was said about this at my church this morning. we gather to worship to partake of the Body and drink of the Blood and to receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save our souls.

  123. Alan says:

    The corollary to Godwin’s Law according to the Oxford English Dictionary is that whoever brings up Hitler has lost the argument.

    I’m happy to talk the issues with you or anyone here but off we have to divert into this kind of analogies I will cede you the conversation.

    My work and daily life has none of this content. I teach and travel and mentor and have zero conversations about this apart from this world where the leaders here insisted we have these postings.

    If Xenia had not called this out I’d have stayed sidelined. But even Xenia has to be shut up if she dare speak against the existing hegemony.

    Want to talk issues I can be reasonable. Want to do put downs I shall give you the field.

  124. Alan says:

    Forgot to mention I have no access to WP.

  125. Alan says:


    I also just noticed the author. Don’t know what he said but nicely played.

    TDS is definitely a thing.

  126. Alan says:

    Here’s a substitute probably the same inputs.

  127. Reuben says:

    Felony charges yet to come, January 6th riots, 4 counts. Election interference in Georgia, 10 counts. Classified documents, 40 counts. My prediction is these charges will only fuel his base. They will be interpreted as partisan attacks, rigged courtrooms, grasping for straws. Again, I don’t pay attention to domestic media, but I suspect these cases will be sensationalized to death, people will get angrier and angrier, riots from the Right will happen again.

  128. Jean says:

    “The question for us is whether there is enough commonality within our Gospel to build a world together.”

    This is a great question. Don’t interpret my response as being dismissive or disrespectful.

    The Gospel is not for building a world. It is for crucifying one to the world and to its basic principles.

    I could agree that the Gospel is the means by which the Church is built. Commonality is found in fellowship based on a common confession of the faith.

    In the context of our current discussion, it is important to note that the Gospel is complete and the finished work of Christ alone. We can’t make it better news, we can’t change it, we can’t destroy it. But we can misrepresent it. We are to live under and in submission to the Gospel. It exists objectively and independently of our desires and feelings. It announces God’s mercy and grace towards a fallen human race by virtue of the sacrifice of his Son, who died for our sins.

    Temporal government and government office holders do not and cannot herald the Gospel. They govern by the law and enforce it with the sword. You could build a country with the law, if you could gather enough like minded citizens. But the law is not a tool of the Gospel.

    The Gospel is the domain of the Church.

  129. Reuben says:

    I read in other news that Trump got on FOX and already started to rile up the base on the verdicts, saying things will come to a breaking point, he’s not sure the public will stand for this. I don’t watch FOX, but I am sure that those who do are just slobbering over the possibility/opportunity of another attempted overthrow if he loses this election.

  130. Duane Arnold says:


    When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck… It’s probably a duck…

    That works in history as well as in contemporary observations.

  131. Reuben says:

    The dog whistle ethnic cleanse trip he has been on about since forever, ALONE speaks for itself. The dude aspires to be Mein Fuhrer. I am not sorry for saying it. He already has the Gott Mit Uns crowd. Literally and figuratively. There is no denying he has the evangelical vote locked.

  132. Janet Linn,BrideofChrist says:

    Jean, Your comment is very insightful. Thank you for posting it. Anyone who reads the Bible knows it is the truth! ” The Gospel is not for building the world.” So true. We are in the word, but not of it. We are sojouners in this world; it is not our true home. So why are so many Christians trying to replace our democracy with a theocracy that is based on their own narrow version of Christianity? Churches can’t even agree amongst themselves about basic church doctrine, much less govern a populace of non- believers. Catholics are against any form of birth control, evangelicals are fine with it. Catholics have no problem with alcoholic beverages, while evangelical teach that drinking is a sin. If we replace democracy with a Christian theocracy will we try Prohibition again? It didn’t work out so well the first time America tried it because most citizens didn’t believe drinking was a sin! Some Christians don’t believe in health care, believing only God heals. Will we get rid of Medicare if those Christians prevail? What would a Christian theocracy under someone like Donald Trump or Speaker of the House Mike Johnson look like? No birth control, no divorce, no IVF for infertile couples, no alcoholic beverages, etc. Gods plan was to change hearts for God, not to change governments and ‘force’ people to change.

  133. Captain Kevin says:

    Janet, great questions and observation.

  134. Dread says:

    I have a grave to fill and no more time for this ‘mostly peaceful’ protest.

    Babel Dread

  135. Josh says:

    The shocker to me is that there is literally nothing that can happen to dissuade a Trump supporter from voting for him. Nothing. No level of immorality, no level of violence at our capitol, no amount of federal convictions. Trump is their man and there will be no movement from that conviction.

    That is baffling to me. I don’t think he deserves it. But that is where we are, and barring a jail sentence, he will be our next president. I’m ashamed of us, again.

    I like what Jean said above, all of it, but what really stuck out is this phrase “But we can misrepresent it.” And I think we constantly do, all of us. Maybe it is too good for humans to properly communicate, but I think we miss the boat and undervalue God’s love for us all the time.

  136. Jean says:

    The Gospel works on the inside of the cup; Christian nationalism works on the outside of the cup. One has an eternal reach; the other is temporary.

  137. bob1 says:

    Josh, what you’re describing is that if a cult.

    Speaking of which, it’s almost impossible not to see the irony here… notice whose name is in the center top of the front of the bus’s windshield…

  138. Kevin H says:


    The irony is inescapable.

  139. Captain Kevin says:

    After all, they have to trust Jesus, because Jesus would obviously vote for Trump. 🤮

  140. bob1 says:

    Sadly, it looks like the couple who ran this bus are now saying they’re homeless. Maybe one of Trump’s rich buddies could buy them a new one.

  141. Reuben says:


  142. DH says:

    It’s called ‘Election Interference’! I’m not sure it’s working.

  143. Jean says:

    A lot of Republicans believe that the case against Trump wouldn’t have been brought against any other individual other than Trump, but how many of those same Republicans believe that the case against Hunter Biden, expected to begin in trial tomorrow, would be taken to trial against any other individual similarly charged?

    I think many independents, such as myself, cannot ignore the hypocrisy of the Republican party.

  144. R'as al Ghul says:

    Reuben @ 2:43 pm,

    If they try another Jan 6th, rest assured we will be ready and loaded for bear. To put in bluntly, if 30% of so-called Evangelical Christians are OK with violence to achieve their goal of “overthrowing wickedness” and putting Trump in charge (even if he loses) and want to die on that hill, I want to help them achieve that goal with the cold, dispassionate professionalism of a Roman soldier doing the same to the followers of Barabbas in 70 AD.

    Over 600,000 Americans died to save the Republic in the 1860s, and if 25 million “Christian” nationalists, MAGA cultists (figure 1/3 of the US population is “Evangelical”, and 30% of those are OK with violence) need to die to save the Republic and our Constitutional form of government, so be it. Consider me a member of Sherman’s army in his march to the sea.

  145. Josh says:

    Holy !#$^. Just want to make it clear that I’m out on that talk.

  146. Michael says:

    R’as al Ghul,

    That is entirely unacceptable here.

    Another comment like that will get you banned…again.

  147. Jerod says:

    Why is someone taking Batman’s archnemesis’s name? its almost as silly as Little Person of Polish Descent

  148. Jerod says:

    Your title is funny. The System worked Chump. that is it. Who knows why God let him get rolled like that. But he did.

    The Roman Soldiers dispassionately killed Jews and Christians alike. Yay!…???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading