Judicial Double Standard Against Trump “Exonerates” Hillary Clinton

The Double Standard of the Judicial Persecution

The recent conviction of former US President Donald Trump by a Manhattan jury on 34 counts related to falsifying business documents to cover up an alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels has raised eyebrows and sparked debates.

Public Perception and Political Motivations

Despite the severity of the charges, many outside the mainstream media view this case as politically motivated.
The prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, has strong ties to the Democratic Party, having received financial support from George Soros.
The trial taking place in liberal Manhattan, a stronghold of anti-Trump sentiment, has also fueled skepticism among non-Republicans.

The verdict’s impact on Trump’s electoral prospects has been negligible so far.
Polls conducted by RealClearPolitics show a mere 0.8% lead for the Republican candidate over Joe Biden, which has actually increased to 1.1% post-verdict.
However, other surveys, including third-party candidates, indicate a slight dip in Trump’s lead, from 2.2% to 2.1% in RCP’s aggregate data.

On the whole, Trump maintains a 1.4% advantage over Biden in FiveThirtyEight’s average polls, down 0.3% from late May.
Nevertheless, the specter of judicial double standards looms large over this case.

A Tale of Two Scandals

The comparison with Hillary Clinton’s actions in a more serious context sheds light on the issue of double standards in judicial treatment.
Clinton’s involvement in the Steele dossier, commissioned to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion, unraveled a complex web of deceit.
Documents declassified by the Director of National Intelligence revealed that the dossier’s claims were unsubstantiated, yet it fueled a prolonged investigation into Trump’s administration.

Moreover, the financial trail behind the Steele dossier, labeled as “legal consulting” by Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, underscores a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the funding’s true nature.
Over $1 million flowed from Clinton’s campaign to Fusion GPS, which in turn hired Steele to fabricate damaging information on Trump’s ties to Russia.

Selective Justice?

Despite these clear attempts to smear a political opponent, no legal actions ensued against Clinton, the mastermind behind this operation.
The stark contrast in the treatment of Trump’s alleged affair cover-up and Clinton’s involvement in a high-profile scandal raises questions of selective prosecution and accountability.

As pundits like Glenn Greenwald point out, the parallels between the cases of Clinton and Trump highlight a disturbing trend of biased legal proceedings.
The lack of repercussions for Clinton’s actions, juxtaposed with Trump’s swift conviction, underscores a troubling double standard in the justice system.

Ultimately, the failure to hold Clinton accountable for her role in the Steele dossier saga reinforces the perception of a rigged system, where political elites evade scrutiny while their opponents face harsh legal consequences.