There is indeed a lot more to be said and has been said that would make clear distinctions between the valid criminality of Trump and the injustice done to Jesus, Peter and Paul.
Then it should be said instead of relying on the term "criminal." Simply implying criminal equals bad ropes in many who you may not wish to include. William Tyndale was executed a criminal. If you prefer the secular, Nelson Mandela and Ghandi were convicted criminals. So was Solzhenitsyn.
Now, here we get into an area that will offend more than have already. Pilate said he found no wrong with Christ, yet crucified him, anyway. That is an unjust conviction. Yet, IIRC, though Ananias was removed for executing James, he did assemble the Sanhedrin and they did sentence James to stoning. Both Peter and Paul did end up legally convicted under the law. Tyndale was convicted and died in accordance with the law. Mandela, Ghandi, and Solzhenitsyn likewise were legally convicted of violating the law. We can rightfully argue that they were convicted by bad laws, but they were convicted by the law of the place and time. If they were wrongly convicted, then they would have been victims of injustice, but if they did indeed violate a bad law, then they were victims of bad laws, not bad justice.
We don't tend to think along such lines because we recognize, as Peter pointed out, it's better to follow the commands of God than the commands of men (very loose paraphrase of what Peter said before the Sanhedrin). With the secular examples, they are those who we respect and honor. But unless the charges they were convicted on were false, we cannot claim injustice was done.
Far better then, if someone dislikes Trump, to be specific of what he did that earned a conviction than to simply proclaim him a criminal and let it go at that. Saying Solzhenitsyn was a criminal doesn't address why he was a criminal, and it's why he was a criminal that makes a difference in how we see him.
www.americanthinker.com
