The Democratic Party’s Attempt to Rig the 2024 Election through the Justice System:

A Brief Look at the New York City and Florida Cases Against Donald Trump

The Democratic Party’s attempt to eliminate its main political opponent from being serious competition in the 2024 presidential election seems to be failing, as more and more people are tired of paying the prices under the President Joe Biden economy and are seeing through the witch hunt against Donald Trump, and the polls are indicating that there is no clear leader at this point (not that the polls were a reliable measure of overall status during 2016 or 2020). Both the hush-money trial in New York City and the classified documents case in Florida are clear examples of the deterioration of the United States’ legal system, and the cherry-picking of indictments against those who get prosecuted for political purposes and those who escape responsibilities for committing those same laws may just cause Democrats to have to abandon their attempt to rig the 2024 election and set up banana republic-style show trials to rid the country of the current opposition leader.

In the classified documents case, Judge Aileen Canon was forced to postpone the May trial indefinitely and reset a hearing for June 24 (with the possibility of the case being delayed until after the election) because the prosecution, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, put the documents back in the wrong order that they were found and misled the court by saying that everything was in the correct sequence (this could have been done inadvertently with the prosecution trying to cover its tracks, or it could have been done deliberately). Anti-Trumpers will assert that the case being delayed is a result of the Trump-appointed judge being biased toward the defendant, but in any other legal case, if the prosecution scrambled up the evidence and lied to the court about it, the case would have likely been dismissed (however, because it is Trump, it will likely still be pursued). How do we know that Smith and his team did not tamper with the evidence or add classified documents to the box that were not there originally, thus making it seem like Trump was guilty when he was not (the FBI regularly plants evidence in order to gain convictions)? This is a serious breach of the concept of a fair trial, and in reality, the case should be dismissed entirely, not only because of the possible tampering of evidence, but also because of other factors involving government foul play.

When in American history has the Department of Justice of the administration in power targeted its opposition candidate with a military-style raid at a private residence and arrested a former president for the same crime that other presidents have committed but gotten away with? This sounds like something out of third-world country, where the dictator looks to consolidate power and arrest anyone challenging his authority by indicting enemies with trumped-up charges and convincing the gullible populace that the crimes committed were so grave that national security and other domestic interests were being threatened (Trump is a threat to democracy, after all, right?). It turns out that the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) raid initiated by Attorney General Merrick Garland expected there to be victims, even authorizing the use of “deadly force” (a paramedic was stationed outside of the house to treat wounds), and the fact that such optics and precautions were needed in order to make Americans perceive Trump as a criminal is a testament to the ludicrousness of the case. It had to play out like a full-scale invasion of Mar-a-Lago (in Palm Beach, Florida) to really get people to see the seriousness of Trump’s “crime.” Plus, Trump’s Fourth Amendment right to searches and seizures falling under a warrant “describing the place to be searched” was violated, as a general warrant was issued for the entire seventeen-acre property instead of covering the specific places in the mansion where the classified documents were suspected of being stored.

The Biden administration’s attempt to rig the election by eliminating its political rival through the “justice” system for the same type of crime that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden committed is telling of the reality of our political theater. In fact, Special Counsel Robert Hur admitted that Joe Biden “willfully retained” classified documents, as Trump was accused of doing, but since Biden is a forgetful and “sympathetic” man who could not be reasonably asked to stand trial and recall events from the past, the sitting president will not be investigated further or charged for the crime that he committed (he is too senile to stand trial but somehow is competent enough to be the figurehead of the American Empire). Yes, the Department of Justice (DoJ) will press charges against Trump (the political opponent) but not against the sitting president (and candidate) that the department would prefer to win in the 2024 election (the bureaucrats want to remain in power, of course), even though Biden kept the classified documents so that he and his ghostwriter were better able to recall events for a 2017 memoir. Democrats and the corporate media try to deflect from not going after Biden by saying that Trump could have avoided prosecution by simply handing over the documents and not “obstructing justice,” but any reasonable person can see through the absurdity and understand the double standard being served here. Biden literally kept the documents to write his book, so his intentions were anything but pure, and yet, Democrats can easily dismiss what Biden did and use their hatred of Trump to argue that their enemy willfully retaining documents was somehow different.

The hypocrisy does not stop there, though. Aside from former Vice President Mike Pence not being charged with retaining classified documents, likely because of his status as an establishment Republican (now a rival of Trump), Hillary Clinton broke Department of State policies and harmed national security by using a private server to conduct official business. In fact, the FBI determined that thousands of her emails contained sensitive or classified materials (as many as 30,490 were work related, and at least 2,000 of them were classified) and that she was “grossly negligent” and could have had a foreign actor access her information. To boot, when she was being investigated for the Benghazi incident, she intentionally wiped some of the emails from the record using a program called BleachBit (this permanently eliminates emails). Yet, the DoJ and FBI decided not to press charges, claiming that it was unintentional mishandling of classified materials. Intentionally eliminating emails should not seem unintentional to the average person, but even if that were the case, the Espionage Act states that it is a “felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way” and a “misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.” So, either way, she clearly committed a crime, and the fact that she got away with it while Trump is being prosecuted should explain everything that you need to know about our politically-motivated justice system.  

While Trump is currently in the final stages of the New York City hush money and misallocation of campaign funds trial, do not forget that Hillary Clinton was given a slap on the wrist for not properly disclosing money (she got an $8,000 fine, and the Democratic National Committee had to pay $105,000). Just like Trump allegedly used campaign funds to hide his affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, the Clinton campaign misreported money for the purposes of funding the fake Steele dossier to initiate the false story that Trump was colluding with Russia (her and the FBI attempted to rig the 2016 election but were unsuccessful), even “masking” this as “legal services” like Trump did in the hush money case. But of course, Trump is being prosecuted with a full trial and potential jail time, and Clinton received a minor fine (she is rich and can easily afford a few grand).

If that were not bad enough, New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan (in New York, the Supreme Court is a trial court, and the New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in the state), who is presiding over the New York City case, donated to Biden’s campaign and an effort to “stop Republicans,” and his daughter worked for the campaign directly. Still, Democrats think that the trial is fair and unbiased and dismiss this fact completely, showing that their Trump Derangement Syndrome has clouded their judgment. In their eyes, it appears that it is completely normal for a judge to be biased against the defendant and not uphold the standard of impartiality.

Furthermore, Judge Merchan even threatened to have Trump jailed for speaking out on social media. The gag order prohibited speech against jurors, witnesses, and the families of the district attorney, court members, and the judge (recall that the judge’s daughter worked for the Biden-Harris campaign), all at the direction of New York County (Manhattan) District Attorney Alvin Bragg (who was given at least $1 million for his campaign by billionaire George Soros through the progressive and Democratic Party-aligned political action committee Color of Change). Of course, the staunchest Trump haters say that it is perfectly normal to gag a defendant and hold him or her in contempt of court for speaking out against members of the court, but in reality, this is unconstitutional, as defendants have the right to defend themselves in the public sphere. This is especially true if there is a political witch hunt being launched at you and you are running for public office and need to use your words to clear your name and not have an election rigged against you (Trump is being attacked at every angle from the corporate media and political pundits, even having his words taken out of context on a regular basis). Trump came close to being thrown in jail for free speech, but instead, he was fined a few thousand dollars. It should not be considered normal for the political party in power to attempt to jail its political rival for speech.

The jury is currently meeting to decide the fate of the former president, and by the time you read this, a decision may have already been released. Some legal experts believe that Trump could be in prison by Monday (June 3), however, the instructions that the judge left for the jury is quite interesting. Although he informed them that they need to come to a unanimous decision on whether Trump falsified business records in order to conceal his affair and misappropriate campaign funds, the jury does not have to have a unanimous decision on which of the three crimes he committed, which include: “falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.” As long as all twelve of them agree that he committed at least one of these, he will be found guilty, which is suspect because it is very unlikely that he will be acquitted since every one of the jurors will almost certainly find that he committed one of the three crimes, given the conditions set by the prosecutors (if you throw enough laws at someone, one of them will stick). District Attorney Bragg and his Democratic Party are determined to prohibit Trump from retaking the highest office in the land, so we will see if the attempt to take down the political opposition leader is successful. What kind of banana republic have we become?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.