To the Editor:
Sir,
I find it quite ironic that you start your Letter to the Editor with nobody wants to be objective and then proceed with the most unobjective editorial I’ve read on Villages-News.com. If you would like to engage in a discussion on the policies of the past Trump/Pence administration and the current Biden/Harris administration as well as the policies that Trump/Vance candidates are on the record for, i will gladly engage. You can start by listing why Harris is the better candidate. What policies is she on the record saying that you’re in favor of? Not ideas but actual ways she would accomplish those ideas. Feel free to list her accomplishments as VP as well. Now let’s move on to your letter.
You say this election is about Democracy and yet imply that the right vote would be for the candidate that has not received a single vote for the nomination. she was appointed by the party’s elite. That’s democracy? Staying on democracy while I move on to the “biased” Supreme Court. There are at least five Democratic appointed secretaries of state that tried to remove Trump off the ballot until that “biased” Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling said no…no…no. Yep that sounds biased to be. The SCOTUS did not grant Trump or any president complete immunity. They are immune for Presidential acts (which Obama should be very grateful for), so now it’s Jack Smith’s job to articulate what was presidential and what wasn’t, so let’s see how that case plays out before we make conclusions. You know, in the name of being “objective” that you so long for.
Now continuing with “biased” judges. You brought up the Florida judge who threw out the classified docs case but failed to mention how Judge Merchan’s not only was a financial contributor to Biden, but his daughter holds a high-ranking position as a fund-raiser for Biden and the Democratic party. Being the objective one you are, why did you fail to mention that? Now at a later time I can gladly provide the case law and precedence that has been set that will show all of the trial errors committed by the judge in that criminal case that will without question have the guilty finding overturned on appeal. And, yes, I said guilty finding, not conviction, because a conviction is not entered until sentencing, therefore Trump is not a convicted felon. Same goes with the sex abuse case. As for the defamation case, I know nothing about it, so cannot comment
Finally, Project 25, you’ve asked me to Google it, and I will, as long as you Google how many times Trump has gone on the record saying he does not endorse Project 25. You’ve asked me to be objective, well sir, I am asking the same from you.
Joe Broziac
Summerfield
