Staff Reports
In a recent article published by the New York Times, it was revealed that Joe Biden wants his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, to take aggressive action against Donald Trump. Biden referred to Trump as a “threat to democracy” and expressed his desire for Garland to stop acting like a “ponderous judge.” This statement clearly shows Biden’s biased intentions to use the Department of Justice to target his political opponent.
The Post Millennial has pointed out that Biden’s statement contradicts his previous claims of wanting an independent Department of Justice. It is clear that Biden wants his administration to go after Trump, rather than upholding the principles of fairness and justice. This politicization of the Department of Justice is a concerning abuse of power.
Meanwhile, Garland himself has made it known that he personally approved the raid on Mar-a-Lago in August 2022. He defended the actions of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors, stating that critiques against them were unfounded attacks on their professionalism. However, leaks about the Trump investigation to the press contradict Garland’s promise to communicate through court filings and official work.
Wow, Pence’s attorney Greg Jacob just admitted, “There is a section in the Constitution that is at best ambiguous whether the vice president can reject electoral slates.” This is huge, because the whole crux of the California State Bar’s argument against John Eastman is that it…
— Rachel Alexander (@Rach_IC) June 21, 2023
Since these statements were made, Trump has been indicted twice by Biden’s Department of Justice. The first indictment is based on the absurd theory that Trump’s failure to turn over documents from his administration constitutes a violation of the Espionage Act. The second indictment is even more outrageous, alleging that Trump seeking legal advice and questioning the integrity of the 2020 election is unlawful. Trump’s lawyers are also listed as co-conspirators in the second indictment.
These indictments raise serious concerns about the state of our justice system. The idea that seeking legal advice and expressing disagreement with an election could be considered unlawful is a dangerous precedent. It seems that giving legal advice is now criminalized if others can contest a different interpretation of the law. This is a clear overstep of government power and undermines the rights of individuals to seek counsel and voice their opinions.
Furthermore, historical precedent shows that vice presidents have unilaterally resolved election disputes in the past. The fact that there is ambiguity in the Constitution regarding the vice president’s authority to reject electoral slates raises questions about the California State Bar’s argument against John Eastman. If there is room for interpretation, then it is not legal malpractice to take an interpretation favorable to one’s client.
Overall, the revelations from the New York Times article and the subsequent actions of Biden’s Department of Justice highlight the dangers of political bias and the erosion of fairness and justice in our legal system. It is crucial to hold our leaders accountable and ensure that the principles of justice are upheld without partisan motivations.
