NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
On President Donald TrumpOn the first day, he signed an executive command entitled “The Federal Government’s Completed Weapon”, responding to the law of the bidel administration against him. Democrats still sharply criticize that eo
November 15, 2022. The former president Donald Trump announced that he had run for the president again. On November 18, the Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to a special advisor to investigate and prosecute Trump, historical first because the prosecution of the former president and the leading presidential candidate of the main opposition political party broke two centuries of legal norms and traditions.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee, Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, recently said that Biden’s “Ministry of Justice was infected with political decision-making, while his leaders refuse to admit this reality.”
President Donald Trump and State Attorney Candidate Pam Bondi (Getty Images)
Trump has consistently and properly criticized the politicization and weapons of the Government of the Bidan Administration. Now he must basically choose whether to allow the unjust law against him naturally to democrats.
Should prosecutors be prosecuted because of their campaign for laws against Trump?
Unfortunately, Administration of bidetLast-minit mahintions, such as politicized reports on special advisers and Biden’s blankets because of his family, friends and political allies, signal that Democrats are unlikely to stop the law and weapon until they turn against them.
Biden’s statement, accompanied by his pardons, showed that he knows that Lawfare is fine: “Unjustified and politically motivated investigations that have devastated the lives, security and financial security of targeted individuals and their families … Research or processing can be immensely harmed by their reputation and finances. “
If the Democrats had distracted the law and obliged to never do it again, Biden’s Last-minit pardon would be unnecessary. Instead, they indicate that Democrats still want the law, expect that the investigations of Democrats under the guidance of Republicans under the guidance of Republicans and predict that Trump may have forgiven his family, appointed and political supporters when he abandons his duty.
New York Legal Law Circus against Trump is a constitutional threat that must be rejected
Democrats recently hinted their commitment to the law when they attacked Pam Bondi During his hearing on a certificate of “future weapon” at the impression. They intend to do the same at the upcoming Kash patella hearing for the FBI director.
Their questions followed a meaningless report by special advisor Jack Smith, where he was unhappy that he would condemn Trump for the J6, but for the 2024 elections. Smith is wrong because he ignored the case and immunity of Trump of the Supreme Court such as Fischer, McDonnell and Yates, who all took away the heart of Smith’s charges. It is ironic that Smith was the Chief Prosecutor in McDonnell; The Supreme Court ruled against him, 9-0.
Furthermore, Smith’s report quote in vain to Trump Distribution of opinions and denying lower courts of presidential immunity, although the Supreme Court rejected them; This reveals to Smith’s bias and bad legal judgment.
The public rejected the law when they re -elected Trump
Smith’s report implies That the Supreme Court was wrong: “No court has ever determined that the presidents are immune to criminal liability for their official acts, and no text in the Constitution explicitly gives such criminal immunity to the President.” The Supreme Court, however, had never had to decide on presidential immunity before, because none of the impression had prosecuted the former president.
Maybe Smith comforts from the inherited media that supported him. For example, the Washington Post mentioned that Smith’s report “seems to make sense to offer a subtle but rather unmistakable cancellation of the Supreme Court and its role in the savings of Trump with possible belief.” Smith’s duty as a special advisor, however, is to adhere to the Supreme Court and not neglect or “reprimand him”.
Usually reports on special advisers are dry, boring, factual documents. Smith fulfilled his political tightened accusations of pulling out of his indictments and the J6 Congress Committee.
Click here for more Fox News opinions
He so hard claimed that he and his office were “impartial”, “neutral” and “professional” such that “he was too much protesting, thoughts” according to Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, act 3, Scene 2. He is not a previous special advisor. felt the need to repeatedly declare his own righteousness and disinterest; No one has ever prosecuted the former president and the leading candidate of the main opposition party.
Up, Smith dropped the “deciduous surprise” When he filed a huge J6 court shortly before the day of the election, unilaterally reciting untreated charges against Trump. It was wrongly claimed, among other things, that Trump had “directed the angry mob toward the capital of the United States to interfere with the Congress Certification of the Presidential Election and then use Rioters violence to further delay it” and that Trump “resorted to the crimes”.
Smith has broken the internal rules of the impression, which state that federal prosecutors “can never choose the time of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges or statements for the purpose of influencing any choice or for the purpose of giving the advantage or disadvantage of any candidate or political party. ”
Click here to get the Fox News app
It seems that Pam Bondi will be confirmed as the Attorney General. She and President Trump can correct it Incom and criminal systemBut only if Democrats admit that their laws and weapons of the Government were wrong and returned to them.
Unfortunately, it may happen that Democrats must show that investigations and prosecutors can be descended on them as easily as the Republicans to insert the stake in the heart of the law.
Click here for more than John Yoo
Click here to read more than John Shu
The views expressed in this article are writers.
