President Trump is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records. The accusation revolves around how his organization recorded certain legal expenses — specifically, a legal settlement. According to Democrat prosecutors, these payments should have been recorded as campaign contributions because they claim the payments were intended to unlawfully influence the 2016 election by concealing a purported sexual encounter with a porn star.
This convoluted case underscores a significant misunderstanding and mischaracterization of legal requirements. There is nothing unlawful about concealing a purported sexual encounter. However, it seems there is a lot of dubious record-keeping happening, but it’s the Democrats who are engaged in it.
Federal campaign finance law actually prohibits candidates from categorizing the payments in question as campaign contributions. Brad Smith, a leading expert on campaign finance law and former member of the Federal Election Commission, was set to testify to this effect in open court. Yet, Judge Juan Merchan, a partisan Democrat and Biden-donor, barred him from doing so. This decision implies that New York law somehow supersedes federal law, a stance that directly conflicts with the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
Judge Merchan’s manipulation of the trial record is evident. He allowed prosecution witnesses to present their understanding of campaign finance laws while preventing Trump’s defense from doing the same. This one-sided approach undermines the fair trial process. Smith was prepared to testify that the agency’s policy precludes candidates from treating such payments as campaign contributions and expenditures, which would have negated any claim of unlawful intent by the Trump organization.
In fact, had Trump intended to influence the 2016 election by covering up the payments to Stormy Daniels, the easiest way would have been to classify these payments as campaign contributions. Under federal law, such contributions made in late October of an election year do not need to be reported until after the election. Yet, this exculpatory information is kept from the jurors, thanks to the partisan handling of the case.
In contrast, the Biden administration seems to engage in far more significant manipulations without scrutiny. Recently, the White House altered the official transcript of Biden’s speech to the NAACP, correcting numerous instances of mental lapses. This so-called transcript was more a political cleanup than an accurate record, highlighting Biden’s cognitive decline while presenting a polished, misleading version to the public.
Additionally, the White House has refused to release audio recordings of Biden’s interviews with the special counsel investigating his mishandling of classified documents, citing executive privilege. This refusal comes despite the administration already releasing written transcripts of these interviews, a move that legally waives any confidentiality. This attempt to conceal the audio recordings suggests they contain damaging evidence about Biden’s mental state.
Finally, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic revealed that top advisers to Dr. Anthony Fauci, including David Morens, used private Gmail accounts to evade public records laws. Emails showed an apparent effort to delete records to avoid scrutiny, highlighting a serious issue of transparency and accountability within the administration.
In summary, while Democrats focus on dubious charges against Trump, they engage in far more concerning manipulations and record-keeping issues themselves. This double standard undermines trust in the legal and political processes, showcasing a significant bias that skews justice and transparency.
