Whenever I bring up México in any debate the issue of corruption becomes the center of the discussion. Americans tend to believe that only other countries or governments are corrupt forgetting that Americans are just as corrupt. While Donald Trump and his supporters bask in the belief that Trump was “exonerated” the examples of corruption continue to permeate across America.
It starts with Donald Trump, the Mueller Report and trickles throughout America. There is ample evidence to suggest that Trump, his companies and his families are governed by corrupt practices. Just the payments to keep former mistresses quiet about their affairs with Donald Trump is corrupt. Trump settling questions about his university’s corrupt practices by refunding money and paying fees/fines demonstrates further proof that Trump is corrupt.
But the American corruption does not stop at Trump’s feet. The reason that Donald Trump’s corruption has been so exposed is because of another corruption. The Democratic Party corruptly kept Bernie Sanders from the party’s presidential nomination. The party corruptly put forth Hillary Clinton, whose family’s many questionable activities over decades are further proof of corruption in America.
Unfortunately, it does not stop at Clinton and Trump but permeates across the American political landscape.
Consider Michael Avenatti, the self-proclaimed anti-Trump champion.
For many years I have watched individuals challenge the status-quo forgetting that in doing so they are putting a target on themselves that almost always leads to exposing their own corruption. Avenatti is such a person.
Although under American jurisprudence we are to assume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty the cases put forth against Michael Avenatti further exposes America’s penchant for corrupt practices.
Michael Avenatti, who is best known for previously representing Stormy Daniels against Donald Trump, was arrested on several charges from two federal cases. One case involves alleged bank fraud in California. The other involves Avenatti and another attorney allegedly attempting to extort Nike.
The 197-page criminal complaint filed on March 22 in Santa Ana, California alleges Avenatti and others committed several frauds. The second 11-page criminal complaint alleges an attempt to extort Nike. Let’s first discuss the California fraud. On its own, and knowing that Avenatti proclaims his innocence, the document lays out a strong case of fraud, but it is insufficient to know about any corruption. However, as part of a pattern, the California case adds to the weight against Avenatti in the Nike case.
This is where things get interesting.
Michael Avenatti is accused of trying to extort Nike. He denies it but alleges that Nike corruptly funded student athletes. If Avenatti is innocent of the alleged crimes, then Nike corruptly helped to create a criminal case against Avenatti. However, if Avenatti is guilty, does that make Nike innocent of the charges of corruption levied against them by Avenatti?
But what if both are guilty?
You see how it doesn’t matter who is guilty or not because someone corrupted the system.
But it gets worse.
Consider the case of Jussie Smollett.
Everyone is talking about how the charges against Smollett were dropped by the prosecutors. Smollett is telling the public that he was vindicated.
But lost in the rhetoric is this uncomfortable detail.
Jussie Smollett was released on a $100,000 bond shortly after his arrest. He paid $10,000 to post the bond. Smollett’s attorney stated that Smollett “forfeited” his bond.
Anyone what follows American jurisprudence understands that a bond is not punitive but a guarantee that the accused will be present in court to answer the charges.
On one hand, the charges were dropped against Smollett and on the other hand he forfeited his $10,000.
So, which is it? Is Smollett guilty and paid a fine, or is he innocent and paid $10,000 because he doesn’t care about money?
It is corruption, plain and simple.