Commentary
“That’s how the American system of justice works. It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, and it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.”
That was President Biden’s Friday response to former President Trump’s remarks about the New York trial, in which he was found guilty on 34 counts.
In the beginning, Biden would have us believe that, “Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself.” Not true. A fact borne out by numerous constitutional attorneys.
His appeal will outline that, and the judge’s refusal to recuse himself. Is it coincidental that the judge set the sentencing date just four days prior to the Republican Convention in July?
It was hardly a victory for the rule of law as Biden intimated and the New York Times insisted.
Our justice system is “literally the cornerstone of America,” said Biden. “(and) should be respected.”
However, on June 22, 2020, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it was Biden who accused the three justices named by Trump, with their “extreme ideology” that “upended the scales of justice.”
We know that soon after taking office. Biden created a commission to study related to expanding the size of the court, but nothing came of it.
Who can forget March 2020, when Biden’s Democrat Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and shouted, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!”
Looking back to the National Review’s coverage of Schumer’s remark, the irony of Biden’s criticism of Trump’s remarks of the trial being “reckless” and “dangerous,” is easily recognized. It’s headline referred to, “Schumer’s Reckless Threats Against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.” Chief Justice Roberts called Schumer’s remarks, “dangerous.”
You may recall how Biden and his Justice Department turned a deaf ear to Republican demands that protestors picketing the homes of the justices be arrested under the statute,18 USC 1507, banning “picketing or parading” with the intent of influencing any judge.”
There are many instances of Democrats voicing criticism over Court decisions.
Biden’s quote opening this blog could easily be applied to former President Obama, who used his 2010 State of the Union address to dress down Supreme Court justices for their Citizens United decision.
Biden, Harris, and the Democrats like to throw out the phrase, “no one is above the law,” but isn’t it strange that behind the indictments of Trump are district attorneys who campaigned on “getting Trump.”
The case against Trump was once dropped by Alvin Bragg and Cy Vance Jr. but mysteriously, or not so mysteriously, Matthew Colangelo, number three in the Department of Justice convinced Bragg there is a case and joins the team in New York. Why? To help Biden win, or simply Trump derangement syndrome?
After all, in July 2019, the Southern District of New York prosecutors had signaled they were unlikely to file. There was no explanation except the New York Times learned in private that “the feds had concerns that Mr. Trump’s lack of basic knowledge of campaign finance laws would make it hard to prove intent.”
Colangelo was out to prove otherwise
So, when Fox’s Shannon Bream stated, “Whether you think there’s a political motive for him, it’s not connected to the DOJ … I mean the feds passed on these election charges,” Trump said she was naïve. I tend to agree, in that the case was dead until Colangelo left the DOJ to assist Bragg.
Then there’s Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, who appointed Jack Smith, someone with an iffy prosecutorial record, special counsel, giving him a wide berth to charge and convict. It was Garland who authorized deadly force when he sent the FBI and other operatives into Mar-A-Lago to retrieve documents in Trump’s possession.
How prejudicial will Biden’s statement on January 6 be: “That’s why January 6th happened, when he (Trump) unleashed an insurrection,” when nobody arrested was charged with insurrection?
SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS TO PONDER
In July 2016, disgraced FBI Director James Comey, speaking of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents: “Clinton should have known better than to send classified information. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”
In February 2024, Special Counsel Robert Hur, writing in his 388-page report on President Biden’s retention of classified material: “We have considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him.”
In July 2019, the New York Times learned in private that “the feds had concerns that Mr. Trump’s lack of basic knowledge of campaign finance laws would make it hard to prove intent.”
Further clarification was published on April 6, 2023 by, Mary Chastain, writing in Legal Insurrection.com, reminded Manhattan DA Bragg that the FEC commissioner concluded that the Trump case isn’t a campaign finance violation: “I don’t know how you get around the evidence that both the Department of Justice in their investigation of the federal campaign finance issues and the Federal Election Commission in their ultimate jurisdiction over campaign finance issues, neither of them found there to be any violations whatsoever.”
This needs to get sorted out in the appeal.
AND FINALLY …
Believe what you will about Biden’s “arms-length” relationship with AG Garland, but I’m siding with the 17 percent of Americans who have lost their faith in the criminal justice system, and I firmly believe there is a Deep State, committed to keep Trump from returning the White House.
May God continue to bless the United States of America.
