Like Him or Not
To the editor:
Last week, a commentary by a legal fellow in the Edwin Mees III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation summarized the Trump New York Trial-more frequently referenced to as the “Hush money trial”- stating, “District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan ignored procedure, took justice into their own biased and fallible hands, and, inevitably, delivered injustice”.
He explains the injustice; “A prosecution cannot be just unless the law and the process used to enforce it are just.”
“Enforcement is unjust if the government claims power it does not have, wields the law not at bad actions but at people it thinks are bad, selectively spares its friends and targets its enemies, or fails to tell its target how he has violated the law.”
The judge in Trump’s trial, Merchan, was biased; “He allowed Bragg to introduce irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence; denied Trump the right to call a witness necessary to rebut one of Bragg’s legal theories; declined to sequester the jury; and failed to properly instruct the jury about a central element of Bragg’s case.” What is clear is they were paying “lip service to the rule of law only to destroy it.” Considering these facts, is Trump the felon or are those who distorted the rule of law the felons?
Letters in the July 5 edition of the FCR were correct in stating we the people as voters are responsible to “prevent putting into the office of the President of the United States a man or woman who wants to destroy” our democratic republic or “take away our freedoms.” One of the authors claimed “MAGA justices” deny justice and the recent Supreme Court decision “paved the way for a MAGA dictatorship.” Is he fearmongering?
A senior writer at National Review reported, “After the debate, there was no more pretending examples of Biden’s fragility, and mental slips were GOP dirty tricks.” He continued, “Just like the Hunter Biden laptop incident, like the freakouts over every lost Supreme Court decision, like the concocted “ethics” problems of Supreme Court justices, like the entire Russia collusion hoax, the Biden cover-up is rationalized in the name of decency.”
Biden’s criminal behavior was rationalized in the investigation of his unauthorized removal, retention, and disclosure of classified documents. Robert Hur, Special Counsel with the U.S. Dept. of Justice, reported in February 2023, “Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” And, at least three times Mr. Biden read from classified entries aloud to his ghostwriter nearly verbatim.” However, “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.” Why?
Because, “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter (writing his 2nd memoir, “Promise Me, Dad”) in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”
I watched Biden’s interview on ABC with George Stephanopoulos. I didn’t see a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man.” I saw a man in denial.
What the voter may be faced with on the November 2024 ballot might be a choice between an aggressive businessman who wants to correct problems many U.S. citizens face domestically and internationally, and “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory who needs someone to write his messages on cards or a teleprompter. The voter doesn’t have to like either personality.
America needs strong leaders who are accountable to U.S. citizens and U.S. Constitutional law in whatever capacity they serve.
Cindy Rodibaugh Flatonia