Why Bribery Joe Should Be Treated the Same as Trump

The argument that President Biden should be treated like Donald Trump, on the basis of

indefensible evidence, is misplaced. While Trump was indeed found guilty, the evidence against him was extensive and thoroughly vetted. In contrast, the

"evidence"

against Biden consists of testimonies that have been debunked and indicted for lying. This article will delve into the inconsistencies and

biases

that exist in the current discourse.

Empirical Evidence Against Trump

Since Trump's impeachment and his subsequent refusal to participate in the Senate trial, solid evidence has emerged from various investigations and grand juries. These investigations, conducted by Republicans and independent citizens, have provided ample grounds for his conviction. The evidence was presented to a panel of

peers

, ensuring a fair and impartial assessment. Despite this, Trump remains a free man, as he is only considered guilty if proven so in a court of law.

The Questionable "Evidence" Against Biden

Contrast this with the case against President Biden. The main "evidence" against him comes from a witness who was coerced by the Kremlin to fabricate a story. This witness has already been indicted for lying in court, rendering their testimony unreliable and unsubstantiated.

President Biden's actions, as evidenced by his statements and public addresses, have not shown any indication of wrongdoing. The idea that he engaged in criminal activity or made compromises has not been supported by factual evidence presented in a courtroom. Thus, treating the fabricated claims against Biden the same way as the solid evidence against Trump is a disservice to justice and due process.

Corruption and Bias Within the System

There is a disturbing pattern of bias within the legal and political systems that seems to favor certain narratives over others. Courts and government officials are often accused of being compromised, corrupt, and rubber-stamping opinions that align with their political standings. This systemic issue must be addressed to ensure a fair and just legal process for all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations.

The question of whether President Biden is guilty or not is not about political rhetoric but about the presence of concrete evidence. He did not commit his alleged crimes in real-time on television, leaving a recorded history of his actions. Instead, the allegations against him are based on testimonies that have been discredited and found to be false.

Conclusion

It is not fair or just to treat unreliable testimonies and unverified claims against President Biden as if they hold the same weight as the extensive and legitimate evidence against former President Trump. The integrity of our legal system demands that all individuals, regardless of their position, are held accountable based on facts and evidence. Dealing with allegations without concrete evidence is not only damaging but also a threat to the principles of justice and due process.