The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

When it comes to the Trump-Russia probe and the possibility of an obstruction of justice charge, I hear two comments from analysts far more than any other: 1) Trump is likely guilty of it. and 2) It'll be difficult to prove. Why is this? Allow Cornell Law School to share with us the reason: "Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. 1503, which provides that 'whoever....corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).' Persons charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers. A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For ...

With all of these sexual harassment and assault allegations coming to fruition in recent weeks, we've continually been told, "Always believe the accusers." As a victim of sexual abuse myself, I tend to agree with those sentiments. However, given the fact that, in a court of law, we're told to treat a defendant as innocent until proven guilty, this mentality serves as quite the perplexing paradox. If we were to combine the two, it'd read, "One is innocent until proven guilty, but always believe the accusers" or "Always believe the accusers, yet one is innocent until proven guilty." Like I said, perplexing... So how do we walk that fine line? How do we not publicly convict a person before they've had their fair trial, yet also take an accuser's words seriously? Is that even possible? If I always believe the accuser, I'll see the alleged perpetrator as guilty until proven innocent. If I always view the alleged perpetrator as innocent...

As I've written about previously, while I disagree with GOP front-runner Donald Trump 99% of the time, I do agree with him that the election system is severely flawed, if not outright rigged. That's not all that's rigged in this country, though. As Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has stated on multiple occasions, the economy is rigged. The wealthiest individuals can afford to hire accountants to find tax loopholes in order to pay less on tax day. Some can even go so far as to not pay any federal income taxes. If in any legal trouble, these same individuals can buy the best legal help in order to get the best deal possible. Not only that, but to start it all, odds have it they were born into a wealthy family and afforded some of the best education in the country. As Senator Warren said earlier this year: "There are two legal systems, one for the rich and powerful, and one for everyone else. It's not equal justice when a kid gets thrown in jail for stealin...