(trendingpoliticsnews) – Joe Biden expressed a desire that his Attorney General Merrick Garland “stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action” against Donald Trump, Biden’s presumed main challenger for the White House in 2024, and that Biden called Trump “threat to democracy.” These sentiments were made public by a March 2023 article in the New York Times. The article was published just after Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney, brought forward his ludicrous lawsuit against Trump.
The Post Millennial observes that this article effectively revealed that “far from hoping his Department of Justice would be independent, Biden wanted it to prosecute Trump.”
Merrick Garland told the American public following the raid on Mar-a-Lago back in August 2022 that he “personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter” and that critiques over the raid were “unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors.”
“I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked,” Garland said. “The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants.”
Garland also promised to speak through his department’s “court filings and its work.” Despite this promise of professionalism, leaks about the Trump investigation that were not made through court filings were made to the press.
Following these statements, Donald Trump has been indicted twice over by Biden’s Department of Justice. The first indictment revolved around the theory that the former president was not entitled to possess documents from his own administration and that his failure to turn over these documents to a rightful authority constituted a violation of the Espionage Act.
The second indictment effectively centered around the theory that Trump’s seeking of legal advice, his disagreement with some of his legal staff, and his petitioning of Congress to address what he and many of his supporters consider to be a fraudulently conducted election in 2020 was unlawful. The second indictment also listed as co-conspirators Trump’s lawyers.
Apparently, giving legal advice is also unlawful now if others can contest a different legal interpretation. While Jack Smith attempts to portray the alternate electors scheme as unlawful and relies on former Vice President Mike Pence saying that he did not believe he had the authority to resolve in any way disputed electors, Pence’s lawyer told a slightly different tale.
Greg Jacob, Pence’s lawyer, admitted during the disbarment hearing of John Eastman that “[t]here is a section in the Constitution that is at best ambiguous whether the vice president can reject electoral slates.” As Rachel Alexander, an election lawyer, noted “[t]his is huge [admission], because the whole crux of the California State Bar’s argument against John Eastman is that it is clearly not authorized.” If that section was open to interpretation then it is not legal malpractice to take an interpretation that is favorable to one’s client.
Furthermore, John Adams in the election of 1796, Thomas Jefferson in 1800, and Richard Nixon in 1960 unilaterally resolved election disputes as Vice President during the counting of the electors’ votes.