Psalm 14:1 says:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Ps 14:1)

What do you suppose that kind of perspective looks like when it shows up in a court of law?

What is really being said by a witness when they’re asked to raise their hand and swear to, “…tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

If there is no absolute apart from themselves, what they’re really saying is, “I’ll tell you what I want, how I feel, and I don’t care if it’s right because it’s all about me.”

You obviously can’t say that just before taking the stand without immediately be dismissed as a bogus witness, so you go through the motions and disregard any notion of hypocrisy because, after all what you’re saying is just words

A couple of years ago, Jim Carrey, while commenting on Will Smith slapping the face of comedian Chris Rock after he had publicly mocked Smith’s wife who was dealing with a particularly humiliating illness, said that Smith had no right to get upset with Chris Rock because he, “…said words.”

They’re just words, right? There is nothing offensive or cruel or hypocritical communicated in your verbiage. They’re just mechanical sounds that have no real meaning.

Of course, that’s ridiculous (Prov 26:18-19; Ecc 10:12Matt 12:36-37; Jas 3:1-12). But it is nevertheless a very reasonable perspective in the mind of someone who has no regard for any absolute apart from themselves because their stomach is their god…

Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. (Phil 3:19)

There are no standards, only situations where what is right is determined by whatever it is that’s going to best promote the idea that there is no authority apart from who you see in the mirror every morning.

So, if words have no real meaning and Truth is defined according to what you want to hear, than Justice is nothing more than a preference and a verdict is nothing more than an opinion.

Granted, this might sound pretty harsh. But when you strip away all the good intentions and the emotional appeals of those who insist that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is a villain, what remains is a corrupted mindset that sees and believes only what they want.

So, whether I’m a witness, a lawyer, or even a judge – whatever my role may be in defining a crime and proving someone guilty – if my philosophical starting point allows me to be my own bottom line, then I can manufacture the crime and I can find the defendant guilty based purely on what it is that I prefer.

In a recent interview, Piers Morgan hosted a panel of individuals including Kevin O’Leary, Mark Geragos, Michael Knowles, and Fransesca Fiorentini. At one point, the exchange went like this:

Piers: Fransesca, what crime did Trump commit?

Fransesca: It was financial crimes, it was white color crimes…that’s exactly what they charged him on – what he was convicted on.

Michael: Which one, though?

Piers: What was the crime?

Fransesca: It’s New York State Law!

Piers: No, I understand. What was the crime?

Fransesca: It is literally…he just got convicted on 34 counts of cooking the actual books…

Piers: What was the crime?

Fransesca: You are not allowed to use your own money to pay off somebody and then he logged it as something different. He logged it as just a regular payment. But he was actually paying off a porn star to keep quiet which, if he hadn’t been running for President, would not have mattered, but he was and so it impacted campaign finance laws in New York State. OK, that’s what Juan Merchan just oversaw this. Alvin Bragg brought these charges because Michael Cohen, (inaudible) was already sentenced to three years in prison to do it.

Piers: I want to go to Mark…Is anything Fransesca just said, is that actually the crime?

Mark: Look, let me just say, I like Fransesca a lot and we probably agree on 80% when it comes to our worldviews. However, Fransesca, the way you just described it, call me afterwards and I’ll educate you because that’s not what happened.

There was no theory given to the jurors. The jurors were told it could’ve been campaign finance, it could’ve been tax, it could’ve been false books. They were told they didn’t have to specify and specifically told they didn’t have to agree unanimously. That’s what irks me. Lifelong Democrat, no fan of Trump, never voted for Trump, never will. But I will tell you as someone who has spent his entire career taking on unpopular causes and holding the government accountable, I have to tell you, I do that for a reason and the reason is: This kind of shenanigans in the criminal courts has no place in a federal election. Campaign Finance Laws are Federal, not State and the State laws have nothing to do with this…

Manhattan prosecutors charged President Trump with felony-level business records falsification, which requires the fraud to be carried out to commit or conceal another crime, but the prosecution also did not have to prove that the secondary crime was actually committed.

Prosecutors alleged that the secondary crime is a New York election law that criminalizes conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Judge Merchan (like “merchant”) ruled that the jury did not have to unanimously agree on what the “unlawful means” was.

And then the jury was instructed on the concept of accessorial (“ACCESS-orial) liability, which states that President Trump did not have to commit the crimes himself to be held criminally liable.

For a trial to be legitimate, at the very least you have to be able to prove that a crime was committed. That’s not the case here.

The Lord detests dishonest scales, but accurate weights find favor with him. (Prov 11:1)

The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy. (Prov 12:22)

There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. (Prov 6:16-19)

With this one case, you have what appear to be dishonest scales, lying lips, haughty eyes, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil and a false witness who pours out lies.

None of this makes sense to the person who refuses to hold himself accountable to anyone other than themselves. In fact, to distract from the fact that they are the very thing thing they claim to despise, they’ll accuse others of those things that they themselves are guilty of.

But words do have meaning, there is such a thing as truth and that is what you use to ensure that justice is served.

What we’re talking about here is not Trump’s conduct as much as we’re talking about the integrity of both the court and the political authorities that established it as credible. This is not a verdict, this is a manufactured condition to be used by a party that can’t validate its policies according to the way they perform in real life. In the absence of legitimate results, they have to demonize what they can’t refute and they become the very thing they claim to despise.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply