Friday, May 31, 2024

DONALD TRUMP AND JESUS

 I'm seeing memes which compare the conviction of Donald Trump to the conviction of Jesus. The argument goes like this: (1) Jesus was falsely convicted; (2) Donald Trump was falsely convicted; therefore (3) Donald Trump is a Jesus figure. The comparison is fallacious. Other than the fact that both convictions occurred as a result of a criminal prosecution, there are no parallels between the conviction of Jesus and the conviction of Trump.

First, Trump is not now, nor has he ever been, the Son of God.

Second, if Jesus had been a mere human being, instead of the Son of God, Jesus’ conviction would have been lawful. It was a violation of the lex iulia maiestas for a citizen or subject of the Roman Empire to go around claiming to be a king without the permission of the Emperor. Violation of the lex iulia maiestas was a capital offense. If a merely human Jesus had claimed to be a king, he would have been guilty of a capital crime. But Jesus wasn’t merely human; he was the Son of God. God’s jurisdiction is superior to the Emperor’s; therefore God’s Son can claim to be a king without violating a law which applies to mere humans.

Third, Trump loudly proclaiming that he was railroaded does not make it true. I prosecuted and convicted several thousand criminals, and most of them claimed to have been railroaded.

Fourth, Jesus was not allowed to appeal his conviction, but was immediately crucified. Donald Trump has the right to appeal his conviction to a higher court. In due course, an appellate court will determine whether Trump’s conviction was proper or improper.

So, how is Donald Trump like Jesus Christ? Not at all.

Tuesday, May 7, 2024

IS STORMY DANIELS A LIAR? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Stormy Daniels testified today in the Trump hush-money trial. She was attacked as a liar, and the attack is scheduled to continue tomorrow. Is she a liar? It doesn't make any difference. The material facts that she testified to--that she took money from Trump to keep silent about her allegations of having sex with him--is admitted by the defense. Whether she was telling the truth about sex with Trump or not, Trump paid her off to keep silent. That is not in dispute. The relevant question is: Did he pay her off to bolster his chances of winning the presidential election? You can set up the issue as a false dichotomy: Was he trying to rig an election, or was he the victim of extortion/blackmail? I say it is a false dichotomy because you don't have to choose between the alternatives: Both can be true at the same time.