The American political landscape has become an ideological battlefield, where moderation seems to have disappeared. Joe Biden's presidential campaign, along with certain progressive sectors and the media, has adopted rhetoric that presents Donald Trump not only as a political opponent, but as an existential threat to the nation.
The Demonization of Trump
Biden and Alarmist Rhetoric
Joe Biden's campaign has been full of hatred towards Trump, presenting him as an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. Biden has aimed at Trump from the beginning, calling him a threat to democracy.
Biden: "Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs"
Biden: "Trump is a threat to democracy"
These statements go beyond the usual political criticism, painting Trump as an imminent danger who must be removed from the political scene "at all costs."
The Shadow of Power: Who Really Governs the United States?
In recent months, concern about who is really in charge in the White House has been growing. Several recent articles shed light on a situation that many feared. Still, few dared to express openly: the possibility that President Joe Biden is not in full control of his administration and that, instead, there is a "shadow government" led by former President Barack Obama.
Biden’s Inner Circle: Protectors or Controllers?
According to Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, an investigation has been launched into who is really "calling the shots" in the Biden administration. Comer has issued subpoenas to three little-known members of the White House staff, whom he describes as Biden's "gatekeepers."
On the other hand, inside sources reveal that Biden's inner circle has shrunk further since the June 27 debate that jeopardized his re-election campaign. Today, Biden appears to be increasingly reliant on longtime advisers such as Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti and Bruce Reed, who some in the White House refer to as "the poobahs" or "the gray hairs."
Obama’s Growing Influence
In November 2020, Obama made a statement that now seems prophetic. In an interview with Stephen Colbert, he said he would be willing to serve a third term if he could "have a stand-in" while he gave the instructions from his basement. This statement takes on new meaning in light of recent events.
According to several media outlets, including CNN, the New York Times, and The Washington Post, Obama has been increasingly making his presence felt in the Biden White House. A senior Biden advisor told CNN that Obama "has been generous with his time and has made it very clear that he is fully engaged in this campaign."
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.
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.
Biden does not acknowledge that he has mental problems so he is not going to submit to any test to receive an official diagnosis to prove otherwise, much less will he voluntarily resign the presidency, either because he is a stubborn old man at best or because his pathological dementia prevents him from realizing that he cannot continue to govern the United States.
The Current Situation
Democrats are having a public discussion about what to do with Joe Biden, as it is clear that the Democratic president is not of sound mind.
The Constitution gives us a clear solution: Remove Biden and have the vice president sworn in as president.
The Options
The only question is whether the removal will be voluntary or forced. Will Biden send a written statement to Congress saying he cannot perform his duties? Everything seems to indicate that because of his mental incapacity, he will not realize his current state.
Or will the Vice President and the Cabinet remove Biden because of his incapacity? Is it the most advisable to happen as quickly as possible, so that the party can find and prepare the new candidate who will face Trump in the presidential race?
Voluntary removal, under Section 3 of the 25th Amendment, or forced removal, under Section 4. Will Biden transmit to Congress "his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office"? Or will the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet inform Congress of President Biden's incapacity and remove him from office?
The Vice President and Cabinet’s Current Inaction Breaches Their Oath To Protect the Constitution
Vice President Kamala Harris and the Biden Cabinet are failing to live up to their oath to protect the Constitution by continuing to promote Biden's candidacy when they know better than anyone that he is unfit to even serve in his current capacity as president and are endangering the security of the United States by keeping Biden sitting in the White House for political reasons when he should be in an insane asylum, another mental institution or at home with treatment appropriate to his old age and mental illness.
It is time to make a decision soon and remove Biden from the presidency for the good of the country and the president himself.
Biden’s Incapacity Admits No Justification for Keeping Him as President
Many try to justify Biden's tenure as commander-in-chief by justifying his mistakes, gaffes, inconsistencies, allusions, physical and mental imbalance, disorientation and loss of direction and memory, verbal errors, and mental lapses as occasional or temporary, instead of recognizing his sad reality, that he is unfit to continue to govern the nation.
No matter the reason, Biden simply cannot lead the U.S. if he is not mentally fit 24 hours a day.The Constitution clearly states what to do in these cases.
The Political Implications
As complicated as it may seem politically the removal of Biden exists and the process is defined in the Constitution its implementation would be the best option for the Democrats, the stability of the nation, and an orderly transition of power change, where by law it is up to Kamala Harris to serve as interim president and focus on finding a new candidate for election.
The Political Future
Despite the current political crisis that the Democrats are going through, it will be they who will continue to govern until they can be replaced in the next presidential election if the Republican Party manages to win the election with candidate Trump, as everything seems to indicate according to the polls. Consequently, the Republicans must act following the Constitution and not think that Biden's removal will guarantee them the automatic presidency, since the Democrats will try to mobilize all their political and electoral forces possible to stay in power. The Republicans, on the other hand, must know how to seize the moment and improve their electoral campaigns to win the vote of the undecided and of some Democrats dissatisfied with the current administration, so they will have to be able to mobilize all their electoral base to participate massively and actively in the voting since Biden's dismissal does not give them a direct pass to win the presidential elections.
In short, it is time for the Democratic party to make a decision on Joe Biden's future and for the Republicans to take the electoral advantages that this moment provides them and get all their voters out to vote to achieve an overwhelming majority and eliminate any possibility that the Democrats can manipulate the ballots in their favor as they did in the 2020 elections.
The causes of the attack against Trump were Biden's hate campaign, threats from Democrats, progressives and the disclosure made by the media
