The security of the United States cannot be in the hands of a person with a cognitive disorder or in a state of dementia.
Without partisan animus, I intend to analyze the imperative need to replace Biden as president definitively or at least temporarily because in recent months it is clear that his mental health has suffered an alarming deterioration typical of a mental illness in its advanced stage, and honestly you do not have to be a specialist in the field to realize the seriousness of the matter.
Maybe in the past he has told some lies, and had some verbal mistakes or " lapsus linguae" but everything indicates that his cognitive problems have been increasing exponentially to such an extent that he should have been subjected to a rigorous examination some time ago to diagnose the seriousness of his mental state or if there was any probability of improvement with some treatment.
Biden Has To Be Replaced Now! For the Good of the Nation and the President Himself!
This July 4th, alarms were once again raised about Biden's mental incapacity to perform the current and future duties of the president and commander-in-chief when in an interview with a Philadelphia radio station he expressed incongruous and crazy phrases:
"By the way, I'm proud to be, as I said, the first vice president, the first black woman ... to serve with a black president." "Proud to serve as the first black woman on the Supreme Court. There's so much we can do because look...we are the United States of America."
The comment left many scratching their heads and wondering what the hell she was thinking. While others of his staunch supporters saw it as a moment of unintentional humor in an otherwise serious political landscape.
In his July 4 speech at the White House,speaking about former President Donald Trump, he referred to him as "a colleague of ours, a former president," before abruptly ending the story, saying, "Probably shouldn't be said anyway."
Some fans see this comment as a "harmless" gaffe.
The above incongruities, misdirection, nonsense, confusion, and references to non-existent situations in his life, that of his relatives, and his participation in supposed historical events we will not mention to avoid a too-long article.
In recent months, indeed, we have witnessed a series of incidents that go beyond simple verbal errors or occasional lapses. The confusing and seemingly disconnected statements have escalated to such an extent that many of his more realistic colleagues are calling for him to step aside and leave the campaign for the good of the Democratic party.
What legal fairness can one expect from Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis? All Soros-funded Democratic Party sympathizers acting as a political mafia organized by the Biden-Obama regime in the Trump prosecutions as a corrupt judicial arm in a lethal combination that can be characterized as a communist-style Banana Republic political vendetta. In this analysis, we will focus on the attorney general of New York so as not to go into too much detail, since the behavior and ideology of the others are practically similar. We could say that they use the same toga to disguise their corruption, political bias, and dishonesty.
Lettitia James' Campaign for Attorney General
Lettitia's campaign was marked by a grotesque lack of ethics centered on the political persecution of President Trump whom she classified as an "illegitimate president", "focus on Donald Trump", "follow your money", "con man", "carnival barker", "carnival barker", and other expletives. The election of Letitia James as Attorney General of New York in 2018 and her subsequent legal actions against Donald Trump have reignited the debate about the limits between justice and politics in the United States. James' campaign, marked by strong anti-Trump rhetoric, has called into question the impartiality of the investigations and prosecutions she is leading against the former president, in addition to calling into question the existence of the rule of law and the impartiality of the government and judicial institutions.
A Political Campaign Focused on Political Revenge Against Trump
During her election campaign, James was unsparing in her criticism of Trump. Promises such as "I will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business" and statements calling him an "illegitimate president" formed the core of his platform. This strategy, while effective in mobilizing Democratic voters, raised concerns about the politicization of the office of Attorney General and the politicization of the organs of justice in the US, at a historic moment when the radical left is transforming democratic government into a neo-Marxist regime.
Who Is Funding the Political Campaigns of the Anti-Trump Prosecutors?
George Soros, along with two of his family members (his son and daughter-in-law: Jonathan Soros and Jennifer Allan Soros) and other major donors (Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, and physician Karla Jurvetson), have been backing the political career of New York Attorney General Letitia James. Other notable contributors to James include director Spike Lee, former Meta executive Sheryl Sandberg, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer. Alvin Bragg, a Democratic Manhattan prosecutor, received $1 million from a George Soros-funded political action committee. He has sued Trump more than 100 times, using this as a banner in his campaigns. Fani Willis also used the slogan "I will arrest Trump" in her campaign. Peter Bernegger, president of Election Watch, filed a complaint against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who alleges that Willis' campaign committee benefited from a campaign finance scam called "smurfing."This practice involves breaking up large donations into small contributions for distribution to favored political campaigns throughout the country. Out-of-state donations and evidence of donor addresses that turned out to be vacant lots or commercial locations have been detected, raising questions about the legitimacy of the contributions and leading to a request for an investigation by the Georgia State Ethics Commission. Fani admitted, "When I took out a large amount of money in my 1st campaign, I kept some of the cash."
Questions About Impartiality
Critics argue that James' campaign statements compromise his ability to lead impartial investigations against Trump. They point out that his personal animosity and election promises unduly influenced his actions as a prosecutor.
Senator Rick Scott said, "This is not the pursuit of justice, it is the fulfillment of a campaign promise. Letitia James campaigned on a rabid desire to prosecute Trump using the political power and taxpayer-funded resources of the office she sought before she had any evidence of actual wrongdoing. This is a gross abuse of our justice system, and the longer this abuse is tolerated by the media and the public, the greater the risk we run of irreparable damage to our democracy. Democrats have spent millions of taxpayer dollars in their efforts to attack President Biden's primary political opponent. It is time to say enough is enough and stop this political witch hunt."
On the other hand, James' defenders (the radical left, Marxist, and globalist organizations) pretend to show that their investigations are based on concrete evidence of possible irregularities that they want to pin on former President Trump to eliminate the possibility of his winning the 2024 election, trying to hide their political motivations. They argue that James' record as a prosecutor demonstrates his commitment to equal application of the law when in reality his commitment is to change the US rule of law to a socialist state that eliminates and persecutes any vestige of opposition to the Biden-Obama regime.
The Dilemma of Justice and Politics
This case raises fundamental questions about the U.S. judicial system:
Can an elected official completely separate his political views from his official duties?
How do campaign statements affect public perceptions of judicial impartiality?
Are there sufficient checks and balances to ensure fairness in politically sensitive cases?
Implications for the Future
James v. Trump could set a dangerous precedent for how perceived conflicts of interest are handled in the judicial system. Regardless of the outcome, public scrutiny of campaign statements by candidates for judicial and prosecutorial office is likely to intensify.
Dissenting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Displays Her Anti-Trumpism
Justice Sotomayor in her dissenting statement against the majority ruling granting Trump and presidents some degree of immunity showed her partisan bent and a visceral anti-Trumpism that calls into question her ability to dispense justice impartially, not because of her right to dissent but because of the general tone of her statements, from which I place the most connoted sentence:
"The relationship between the president and the people he serves has irrevocably changed," Sotomayor wrote. "In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law."
Chief Justice Roberts dismissed concerns about the implications of the ruling, saying, "The president does not enjoy immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything he does is official. The president is not above the law."
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the legal arbitrariness committed by Letitia James and the rest of the anti-Trump prosecutors underscores the inherent tension between the democratic process and the inherent need to maintain an impartial judicial system with adherence to democracy and the rule of law detached from the political parties in power. As the legal actions against Trump move forward, the debate over the line between justice and politics will continue to be a contested issue in order to preserve democratic precepts, the rule of law and eliminate corruption and the existence of the so-called deep state that is unfortunately controlling politics and the institutions charged with enforcing the laws with the required impartiality. Time and the courts will determine whether the investigations by James and the rest of the prosecutors in charge of the prosecutions against Donald Trump will be seen as the fair application of the law or whether they will be seen as political persecution motivated by campaign promises and political motivations. In either case, this episode will surely influence how future politically sensitive cases are dealt with in the U.S. judicial system.
A Light at the End of the Tunnel
All is not lost, the U.S. Supreme Court lit the first candle at the end of the tunnel with the July 1 decision that granted former President Donald Trump "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution" for those actions of an official nature that he took while in office and ruled that he also enjoys "certain immunity" from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office and that he does not enjoy immunity for possible crimes in his non-official capacities.
The US Supreme Court's July 1 ruling granted former President Trump "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution" for official actions he took while in office and ruled that former President Donald Trump enjoys "some immunity" from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office and that he does not enjoy immunity for possible crimes in his non-official capacity.
Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling
This ruling will have important repercussions for the criminal cases against President Trump:
Deferral of sentencing and/or dismissal of guilty plea in the hush payment and corporate fraud case at the request of Trump's lawyers on the grounds that many of the charges for the alleged offences could be considered to be activities of an official nature. Sentencing was scheduled for 11 July, but Judge Juan Merchán has announced that sentencing will be postponed until 18 September, "if it is still necessary".
Prosecution of the alleged conspiracy to try to overturn the 2020 election results and charges related to the so-called January 6 riot on Capitol Hill are on hold as Jack Smith the special prosecutor in charge of the case must restructure the case against Trump and the evidence he may use based on the president's new immunity rules. Communications he had with Justice Department officials over allegations of voter fraud cannot be used against him as they are clearly official actions, just as allegations against Trump of pressuring Vice President Mike Pence not to certify Joe Biden's election victory would also fall into the realm of official actions by the former president.
Charges against Trump for allegedly interfering in Georgia's 2020 election are in doubt for the same reasons as the actions are considered official in nature because they occurred while he was still president. This case has already been postponed by an appeal by Trump's lawyers seeking to disqualify prosecutor Fani Willis and may be delayed further.
The charges of withholding and possessing confidential classified documents already stayed will have to be reversed and stayed longer as Trump's lawyers argued that Trump's actions were official because he had designated the classified documents as part of his personal records while he was still in the White House. Monday's Supreme Court ruling could give him reason to reconsider the immunity issue, further delaying the proceedings. The chief justice also stated that testimony or private records of the president or his advisers are not admissible in court. The chief justice also stated that private testimony or records of the president or his advisers are not admissible in a court of law.
Us Supreme Court Delineates Presidential Immunity: Implications for Donald Trump and Future Presidents
Legal Double Standards: Trump Cases and Impunity for Hillary and Biden
Leer en Español
The Double Standard of the FBI and the DOJ
This article delves into the legal scrutiny that former President Donald Trump faces, contrasting it with the handling of controversies involving previous presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and current President Joe Biden. By examining the legal background of these individuals, ongoing investigations, disparities in media coverage, public perceptions, and broader implications for politics and justice, we aim to shed light on inconsistencies in the application of legal standards and the double standard of justice implemented by the Biden-Obama regime.
It is assumed that in the United States the FBI is in charge, together with the CIA, of safeguarding National Security with absolute adherence to federal laws and the Constitution, not to serve party campaigns or the political interests of internal or external groups and organizations. external and that the DOJ is responsible for enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States according to the law; ensuring public security against foreign and domestic threats; provide federal leadership in crime prevention and control; demand fair punishment for those guilty of illegal behavior; and ensure fair and impartial administration for all Americans . The separation of powers according to the United States Constitution must prevent the concentration of power in a single person or group: the legislative, executive and judicial branches , however the Biden-Obama regime has violated these precepts by turning the FBI into its political police and the DOJ in a biased instrument of justice against Trump and any person with conservative ideas and/or followers of the former president.
The Legal Background of the Trump, Clinton, and Biden Cases
Trump has faced investigations trumped up by his political enemies throughout his career, from the false allegations of the Russian plot to his alleged involvement in the events on Capitol Hill to fraud claims, falsification of business records in New York, sexual assault allegations, falsification of business records in connection with a hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and a string of 37 felonies, including 31 counts of unlawful withholding of government documents of secret national defense information and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and challenges to his tax returns promoted by the Biden-Obama regime with the complicity of the FBI and the Justice Department, endorsed by globalism and the neo-Marxist media, who seek at all costs to prevent Trump's victory in the presidential race, co-opt the conservative movement and destroy the conservative culture of his supporters.
Legal Background of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden
Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have also faced mock legal scrutiny in the past and differential treatment by both the FBI and the DOJ who have used "kid gloves" to cover up crimes and interfere in judicial decisions that could prosecute both figures. Clinton was the subject of investigations into her use of a private email server while Secretary of State that clearly endangered the security of the United States, while Biden's corruption crimes and mishandling of government documents have been downplayed and protected as well as crimes related to the Biden family, his son Hunter Biden, evidence of fraud and his businesses abroad, favoring right-wing neo-Marxist ideology.
Investigations and Legal Proceedings Against Trump
Investigations in Progress
Trump is currently facing fabricated investigations by his political enemies in power into possible financial and tax violations, as well as accusations of obstruction of justice ranging from falsifying business records in New York to attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election between others such as falsification of business records in connection with the payment of an adult film star in 2016, and a string of 37 felonies, including 31 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Past Legal Political Proceedings
Trump was impeached twice in impeachment trials in the US House of Representatives, but both impeachment attempts were unsuccessful in the Senate.
Past Investigations
The Russian Plot Against Trump
The investigation of the Trump campaign for alleged collusion with Russia was the brainchild of former President Barack Obama to favor Hillary Clinton on the path to the presidency and eliminate the chances of victory for the opponent Trump who involved the FBI and the CIA to spy on the Trump's campaign before the 2016 election that continued during Trump's presidency under DOJ special counsel Robert Mueller and ended in March 2019 with the conclusion that neither he nor anyone around him worked with the Kremlin to win the 2016 elections.
Comparison of Media Coverage of Scandals
The media coverage of the scandals and alleged crimes attributed to Trump and surrounding Clinton and Biden have been covered with the enormous bias and favorable focus that the large globalist media monopolies give to the cases of Clinton and Biden, while they stigmatize those of former President Trump who has been the subject of unprecedented political persecution by the government in power of the United States comparable to those carried out by the socialist dictatorships of Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Public Opinions and Perceptions of Double Standards
Many people have expressed concern about the double standard in the way Trump's legal cases and scandals are handled compared to those of Clinton and Biden, which has sparked debates about fairness and political polarization in the judicial system and media across the country in favor of the democratic regime in power that is heading towards an authoritarian regime with a neo-Marxist tendency.
Political and Legal Implications of the Cases
When it comes to the legal problems of politicians like Trump, Clinton, and Biden, it's like a never-ending soap opera that keeps us glued to our seats. The political and legal implications of these cases are as juicy as a scandal on a reality television show. From conflicts of interest of justice and those in charge of applying it to accusations of violations and bribery of officials and judges. These cases have had a significant impact on the public's perception of political leaders and the loss of trust in the American legal and democratic system.
Analysis of Impartiality in the Judicial System
Let's talk about the elephant in the room: Is the judicial system really blind, or does it occasionally peek through its blindfold? When comparing the treatment of Trump, Clinton, and Biden in the judicial sphere, it is difficult not to wonder if there is a double standard at play. Are we all equal before the law, or do last names like Clinton, Biden, Obama, and Democratic political affiliation come with a get-out-of-jail-free card?
The Role of Social Networks in the Dissemination of Information
In today's digital age, social media is the town crier that spreads information faster than you can say "tweet." The scandals that maliciously blame Trump, and exonerate Clinton and Biden, have been dissected, analyzed, and turned into memes across various platforms. But with great power comes great responsibility, and the role of social media in shaping public opinion and influencing judicial processes is a double-edged sword that favors the interests of globalism, neo-Marxism, and tendencies towards socialism of the democratic party. It's like a digital "Wild West", and sometimes the truth can get lost in a sea of likes and shares.
Reflections on Equity in Justice in the United States
The fabricated courtroom dramas against Trump, and the cover-up of crimes committed by Clinton and Biden, remind us that being a public figure is not always easy when you face the machinery of political power mediated by the interests of globalism. The question of fairness and justice for these high-profile people lingers in the air like a bad smell. Should we demand more from our leaders or is this a case of "celebrity justice" in which fame and political power can tip the balance? It's a tough nut to crack, but one thing is for sure: the courtroom is where the rich, famous, and powerful come to play a high-stakes game of legal chess. In conclusion, comparing judicial procedures and public responses to the Trump, Clinton, and Biden cases raises important questions about fairness and consistency in the American judicial system. As debates continue around the perceived double standard in the approach to scandals, it becomes increasingly crucial to reflect on the principles of equality and fairness that underpin the American legal process. By critically examining these dynamics, we can strive for a more transparent and equitable approach to holding public figures accountable for their actions.
The Million Dollar Question
How Are the Trump, Clinton, and Biden Court Cases Different?
Trump's court cases are marked by the use of justice as a weapon of political persecution by the Biden-Obama regime to avoid at all costs the probable election of Trump as president, while the case of Hilary Clinton was supported by the decision of the former director of the FBI, James B. Comey not to prosecute even though according to his investigation Hillary along with her colleagues “were extremely careless in their handling of highly confidential and sensitive information.” About Biden's corruption crimes and mishandling of government documents have been minimized and protected, as well as crimes related to the Biden family, her son Hunter Biden, evidence of fraud, and his businesses abroad. History shows that all investigations and court cases launched against Trump have had the objective of preventing Trump from being elected president from the Obama Presidency to the Biden Presidency.
Let's hope that Trump is acquitted and elected president so that democracy, Judeo-Christian values can be recovered, and trust in legal institutions and law enforcement agencies can be restored and the United States can recover and return to MAGA.
Biden Needs To Be Replaced Now! For the Good of the USA
