Nobody knows what I am talking about of course.

Just like emails are forever …

Jean De Arc also had many French loyalists and clerics that redid the trial. That would have duplicated much of the records too in the process. And it would have been duplicated outside the hands of the Dominican faction of Vatican torturers.

* * *
I made a study of the Maid of Orléans some years ago, and discovered that one of the reasons we have the relatively copious records of her trials, and some small modicum of due process, is that the clerk recording the testimony refused to change the records or suppress them (or acts to that effect; it’s been decades since I did the research).

Just thought I would bring that up because of the Judge Ellis connection today.

How does the The Left handle Trump? With hatred and bigotry and fear.

All the clerics that pronounced her guilty and also innocent, were English. No French clerics were allowed. The war she was part of was a claim war over whether the King of England would be the King of France.

A perfect example of corrupt humans using an even more corrupt religious control scheme for power and greed and fame. That never gets old nor does it ever change.

Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime. — Beria

It’s older than that:

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
– Cardinal Richelieu

(Yeap, the very same Richelieu that Alexandre Dumas used as antagonist in D’Artagnan and the Three Musketeers two centuries later)

“Russiagate has no crime at its core. It wasn’t a crime for Donald Trump to win the 2016 election.

That makes the Mueller probe, at most, a fishing expedition for “intelligence” that might support an alternative theory about the electoral outcome — an alternative, that is, to the blindingly obvious theory that Trump won because he gained enough political support in the requisite states to achieve a victory in the electoral college.

The “collusion” theory assumes, without justification, that it would have required “Russian interference” and Trump’s collusion in it to bring about a Trump victory. If it doesn’t make that assumption, then what is all this even about?
…
A straight counterintelligence probe of Russian activity could have been undertaken by the federal agencies without putting a single Trump campaign official under oath. If something came of that, something implicating a Trump official, appropriate action would then be indicated, and something tangible — like an indictment on a crime related to “interference in the 2016 election” — would actually happen.

The hybrid “investigation” we have gotten instead, which quite clearly aims to put as many Trump associates under oath as possible, may be “interesting.” But it is not a rule-of-law use of the power of prosecution. It is not due process.

Rather, it is a case of slapping a prosecutorial badge on an evidence-free, tendentiously-premised theory based in political disgruntlement.

A true intelligence probe would know when to cut its losses for lack of yield. In any case, it could function like a vendetta for years without harming the innocent through legal harassment, because it wouldn’t have prosecutorial power.

A true law-and-order probe, mindful of judges and appeals courts, would manufacture process crimes solely in pursuit of actual underlying crimes (e.g., to leverage cooperation that could prove crimes and convict perpetrators).

Mueller’s probe is neither. That’s why it is so profoundly dangerous and wrong. It’s the power of the state, being wielded without the most basic constraints and restraints of the rule of law.

It cannot stand. This model of weaponized state power must not remain a possibility in our future. The only positive outcome will be if the Mueller probe — the whole process surrounding it — becomes the torpedo that hits its own launch platform. We may at least hope for that.”