Evidence of the Biden-Obama Regime's Double Standard of Justice in the USA
A fair-minded analysis of the double standard of justice when applying to Republicans with maximum rigor in convictions and when exonerating Democrats who have committed similar alleged crimes. As well as the use of the DOJ as the political arm of the neo-Marxist Biden-Obama regime.
Irrefutable Cases of the American Legal Double Standard
- Comparison of investigations into the handling of classified information .
- Differences in the treatment of tax or financial fraud cases .
- Analysis of election interference investigations .
- Denial of executive privilege for refusal to testify and imprisonment.
"Comparative Analysis: High-Profile U.S. Political Court Cases"
In recent years, the U.S. justice system has come under scrutiny due to the perceived differential treatment of political figures in the Democratic party as opposed to those in the Republican party. We examine a few notable cases to provide perspective on the deterioration of our legal system.
-
Handling of Classified Information
Case A: Hillary Clinton (Democrat). In 2016, the FBI investigated Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. Although then-FBI Director James Comey called her handling of classified information "extremely careless," no criminal charges were filed.
Case B: Donald Trump (Republican). In 2022, the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, the residence of former President Trump, in connection with classified documents. Trump was indicted on multiple federal charges, including intentional withholding of national defense information.
-
Tax and Financial Fraud Cases
Case A: Hunter Biden (Democrat). President Joe Biden's son has been under investigation for possible tax and foreign lobbying violations. In 2023, a plea deal was reached on lesser charges of tax evasion and illegal gun possession, which was later rejected by a judge.
Case B: Trump Organization (Republican). In 2022, the Trump Organization was found guilty of tax fraud and falsifying business records. The company was fined, although Donald Trump personally was not charged in this case.
-
Investigations Into Election Interference
Case A: Mueller Investigation (focused primarily on Republicans). Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election resulted in multiple indictments against Trump associates, although he found no evidence of direct collusion with the Trump campaign.
Case B: Durham Investigation (focused primarily on Democrats). John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation resulted in few indictments and no significant convictions related to the conduct of FBI or Democratic officials.
Conclusion: These cases illustrate the complexity of the U.S. judicial system and the perceptions that demonstrate the existence of differential treatment that exonerates Democrats of their alleged crimes and condemns Republicans with maximum rigor for obviously similar alleged crimes. It is important to note that each case has particularities and legal contexts. Observers, media, and legal experts continue to debate on both sides of the political spectrum justifying whether these differences reflect a systematic bias or are the result of political passions and circumstances.
Political Prisoners in the USA for Denial of Executive Privilege To Refuse To Testify
Comparative Analysis: Garland, Bannon, and Navarro
-
Context:
- Merrick Garland: Current U.S. Attorney General (nominated by President Biden)
- Steve Bannon: Former White House senior advisor during the Trump administration
- Peter Navarro: Former White House trade advisor during the Trump administration.
-
Specific Situations:
Merrick Garland: In 2023, Garland was subpoenaed by the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee to testify about various Justice Department investigations. Garland declined to appear, citing the Justice Department's long-standing policy of not discussing ongoing investigations.
Steve Bannon: In 2021, Bannon was subpoenaed by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol assault. He refused to appear, citing executive privilege even though he was no longer working at the White House at the time of the events under investigation.
Peter Navarro: Similar to Bannon, Navarro was subpoenaed by the same committee in 2022 and also refused to appear, citing executive privilege.
-
Legal Findings:
"Merrick Garland: To date, he has not faced criminal charges for his refusal to testify. The House Judiciary Committee has threatened to initiate contempt proceedings, but has not moved in that direction."
"Steve Bannon: He was charged with contempt of Congress in November 2021. In July 2022, he was convicted andsentenced to four months in prison and a fine of $6,500. "
"Peter Navarro: He was charged with contempt of Congress in June 2022. In September 2023, he was convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment and a fine of $9,500."
-
Differences:
- Current position: Garland is a sitting official in the Biden administration (U.S. Attorney General), while Bannon (was chief strategist for the White House in the Trump administration) and Navarro (was former White House trade advisor in the Trump administration).
- Nature of the investigation: The subpoena to Garland related to ongoing Department of Justice investigations, while those to Bannon and Navarro related to past events.
- Legal basis for executive privilege:
- Garland's claim of executive privilege was approved by the Justice Department, while those of Bannon and Navarro were disapproved which demonstrates the existence of political bias.
-
Controversy:
.
Advocates for Bannon and Navarro argue that they are being treated unfairly compared to Garland, noting that all refused to testify. Garland's critics argue that he should be held to the same standard.
Critics of Garland argue that he should be held to the same standard.
On the other hand, Garland's defenders argue that his situation is fundamentally different because of his current position and the nature of the information requested. Critics of Bannon and Navarro contend that their claims of executive privilege lacked a sound legal basis.
Conclusion: Although these cases share the common feature of refusal to testify before Congress, differences in their specific circumstances and legal bases have led to different outcomes. The debate over whether this constitutes unfair differential treatment is more than evident and is the result of legitimate differences in current political circumstances that reward Democrats and punish Republicans. The injustices legalized during the Biden-Obama administration will continue to be a topic of discussion in legal and political circles.
The existence of legal bias based on political affiliation and partiality favoring Democrats is irrefutable even though the Biden-Obama regime administration pretends to demonstrate that they do not intervene or influence the decisions of the DOJ or institutions such as the FBI that are acting as a weapon of relentless persecution against Republicans, which has resulted in the undeniable existence of political prisoners and the systematic violation of the rule of law in the United States with the consequent loss of confidence of the people of the United States and the world in general in the institutions that are supposed to apply justice impartially.
I encourage you to further investigate these and other cases to form your own opinions on the workings of the justice system in relation to high-profile political figures and if you disagree with my analysis express your views on our official social media accounts.
