A new development in the outspoken, divisive case against the presumptive Republican forerunner, Donald Trump, came to light this Tuesday. A recent expose? by Fox News showcased the unequaled bias residing in the judiciary, particularly with respect to one of the chief prosecutors. Susan Hoffinger, a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and a key player in the case brought forward by Democratic DA Alvin Bragg, is shown to have made significant financial contributions to President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign during the Democratic primaries.
Federal Election Committee (FEC) public records disclose that Hoffinger made not one, but two donations to the Biden campaign amounting to $250 each. Furthermore, her financial support wasn’t solely dedicated to the Biden’s presidential run. Hoffinger distributed hundreds of dollars in additional backing to a host of other Democratic candidates. Donations appear to have been made through the primary Democratic fundraising service, ActBlue, as indicated by these records.
Hoffinger’s political leaning seems far from neutral, demonstrating long-standing and unwavering support for the Democratic Party. This is substantiated by her contribution record, which dates back to failed presidential candidate John Kerry’s run against President George W. Bush in 2004. Hoffinger, it seems, has never strayed from supporting Democratic causes, portraying a clear picture of her party allegiance.
The prejudice in the Manhattan courtroom isn’t confined to Hoffinger. Judge Juan Merchan, presiding over the case, has equally shown a partial political alignment, according to FEC records. These records reveal that Merchan made a $15 donation to Biden’s campaign, as well as $10 each to the Progressive Turnout Project and the Stop Republicans initiative.
Interestingly, despite his blatant support for causes opposing Trump, Merchan has declined to excuse himself from the looming Trump case. American citizens watching the proceedings understand the bias in play, resulting in widespread belief in Trump’s forthcoming victory in November. The unfairness at play here is glaring.
Further undermining the perception of fairness of the court is Matthew Colangelo, another prosecutor in this team. Colangelo, a veteran of the Democratic National Committee, was previously hired as a political consultant. Seeing Colangelo’s transition from the Biden Department of Justice to DA Bragg’s office ahead of the Trump proceedings only adds to the sinister atmosphere of bias.
FOX News’ exploration into the number of anti-Trump prosecutors on the team paints a disconcerting image of Trump’s courtroom opponents. This is a point that hasn’t escaped notable Republican figures, such as Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio. Vance recently illuminated the perceptible bias running rampant in the Manhattan judicial proceedings against Trump.
Vance drew attention to the evidence of prejudice against Trump, stating ‘A Biden DOJ attorney (and DNC consultant) joins a Soros-funded prosecutor’s office. That office prosecutes Donald Trump for what the NY Times has called a ‘paperwork’ problem. The presiding judge is a Biden campaign donor. This is what a ‘threat to democracy’ looks like.
Donald Trump is currently embroiled in a myriad of legal challenges involving falsifying business records, which total 34 charges. These charges stem from his former legal counsel, Michael Cohen, paying Stormy Daniels $130,000. The payment was allegedly related to a 2006 affair.
Concerning the particular payment to Daniels, Trump had reimbursed Cohen. Allegedly, this transaction was documented as a legal expense within business records. This aspect of the case has stirred a significant amount of controversy and calls into question ethical business practices.
DA Alvin Bragg argued that the payment to Daniels was not a simple legal expense. Instead, he claims it was used to safeguard Trump’s 2016 campaign. If this is the case, Bragg submits, it represents a violation of campaign finance law. The implications could be serious, potentially casting a long-lasting shadow on the validity of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Overall, the sheer magnitude of bias evident in the case casts a dark shadow over the integrity and fairness of the judicial process. The aforementioned instances of bias are troubling indications of a compromised pioneering spirit of political impartiality in the legal system.
