Home » What Trump’s conviction means for the realm of prophecy
Donald Trump

What Trump’s conviction means for the realm of prophecy

Trump’s closest allies were not the only ones defending him after he was convicted; many of his fiercest critics said Trump's conviction was a sham.

by Anne Ng

Donald Trump’s conviction on all 34 counts of falsifying business records has sent shockwaves not only throughout the United States but across the globe. This marks the first time in the nation’s history a former president has been found guilty of felony offences.

In the wake of this trial, there has been speculation about the supernatural implications surrounding Trump’s fate.

In a recent prophetic word before the verdict, Troy Black assured Christians that no matter if Trump ended up in prison or not, God would use the situation for His good and glory.

“He said, ‘as a nation, you don’t need to worry about this,’” Black prophesied. “Even if Trump gets convicted you don’t need to worry.” [1]

Troy Black


Black emphasized the importance for believers to maintain their focus on Jesus amidst the uncertainty.

Drawing inspiration from Romans 8:28, Black highlighted the belief that God orchestrates all events for His greater plan.

Amanda Grace echoed similar sentiments in her post-verdict commentary, urging individuals to seek God’s perspective beyond the physical realm.

“You cannot look at what you see right now,” Grace says. “You have to ask the Lord to show you His prophetic vision of what is happening right now. Don’t look at what you see. Don’t look at the physical right now and build your faith off of that.” [2]

Amanda Grace


What we can gauge from this current verdict is that God is up to something that we may not understand or see, but that He is working now just as He does in all circumstances.

The reactions to Trump’s conviction were polarised, with some staunch allies defending him while critics condemned the outcome.

US Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted to convict Trump during the 2021 impeachment trial, said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct.” [3]

She criticised New York prosecutors:

“It is fundamental to our American system of justice that the government prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be,” she said in a statement.

Susan Collins


“In this case, the opposite has happened. The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct.

“The political underpinnings of this case further blur the lines between the judicial system and the electoral system, and this verdict likely will be the subject of a protracted appeals process,” she added. [4]

National Review, a frequent critic of Trump, called the verdict “horrendous” in an editorial. Andrew C McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who argued in 2021 that Trump should be convicted after the impeachment trial, called Bragg’s charges “outrageous.”

The indictment alleges that Trump reimbursed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen after Cohen paid porn star Storm Daniels to keep her affair with Trump secret before the 2016 election. Trump has denied all of this.

According to Bragg, Trump falsified business records to cover up another crime. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanour, but it becomes a felony when a secondary felony is involved. Bragg’s office argued that the second crime was an illegal campaign expenditure, paying Daniels.

The problem, Trump’s defenders say, is that Trump was never convicted of illegal campaign expenses.

Andrew McCarthy


“Bragg, a state prosecutor, has no jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign law,” McCarthy wrote.

The National Review editorial board criticised Bragg: “In a case that will eventually be remembered as a textbook instance of selective prosecution, the Manhattan district attorney breathed life into an alleged bookkeeping misdemeanour that the statute of limitations had expired on and, Merlin-like, transformed it into 34 felonies,” the editorial read.

“… The idea that it was a violation of federal campaign law is not credible. Paying porn stars for their silence is not a campaign expense. Moreover, Trump would have had to wilfully violate the law, and there’s no evidence that he was even thinking of campaign finance law.”

Bragg has become “the first prosecutor in the history of the country to abuse his office in hopes of damaging an opposition presidential candidate ahead of a national election,” the editorial said. [5]

David French, a New York Times columnist and frequent critic of Trump, noted last year that Bragg’s predecessor decided not to take the case to trial. French further noted that Bragg’s case relies on “federal criminal charges that the Justice Department did not want to pursue.”

“Should state officials bring a state claim that depends on an accusation of having violated federal law when federal charges were never filed?” French asked. The answer, French said, is no.

David French


“It’s a local district attorney prosecuting a state-level misdemeanour, potentially tying that to a federal felony that was never prosecuted by the federal government,” French said. “So that’s why a lot of folks look at this – and me included – and say that’s a bit of a reach.” [6]

[1] & [2] What the Trump verdict means for the realm of prophecy | Charisma | May 31 2024

[3] – [6] Why Trump’s fiercest critics say his conviction is a sham | Crosswalk | May 31 2024


Related Articles