Unfair Trials and Political Agenda: An Insightful Analysis of NYC’s Legal System


As the city that never sleeps continues to face legal controversies, one cannot help but question the fairness of its judicial system. With the recent review by conservative commentator Jesse Watters, the spotlight has been shone on the biased nature of New York City's courts. In this article, we take a closer look at Watters' observations and examine the potential political agenda behind the city's legal proceedings.

First and foremost, Watters highlights the glaring disparity between the treatment of conservative figures and those of a liberal persuasion. In the first seven cases reviewed by Watters, it is evident that the city's courts are quick to label conservatives as guilty, while granting leniency to liberals. This blatant double standard only serves to further divide an already polarized society.

Moreover, Watters delves into the tactics used by the prosecution in these cases. From cherry-picking evidence to manipulating witness testimonies, it is clear that the goal is not to seek justice, but rather to achieve a predetermined outcome.

This kangaroo court mentality not only undermines the credibility of the legal system, but it also threatens the fundamental principles of fairness and due process.

It is no secret that New York City has long been a Democratic stronghold. As Watters points out, this political bias is reflected in the composition of the jury pool, which is predominantly made up of liberal-leaning individuals. This raises serious concerns about the objectivity of jury decisions and further perpetuates the unequal treatment of defendants based on their political beliefs.

But the issue at hand goes beyond the courtroom. Watters highlights the pervasive influence of leftist ideology in the city's legal system, with judges and prosecutors using their positions to push their personal agendas. This disturbing trend not only hinders the pursuit of justice, but it also infringes upon the rights of individuals to a fair trial.

As Watters continues to dissect each case, it becomes increasingly clear that the deck is stacked against those who do not align with the liberal narrative. From the biased media coverage to the pressure to conform to societal norms, conservatives are fighting an uphill battle in the city's courts. This begs the question: is justice truly blind in New York City, or is it simply a tool to advance a political agenda?

In conclusion, Jesse Watters' thorough review of the first seven cases in New York City paints a troubling picture of a legal system plagued by political bias and unfair treatment. The lack of objectivity, manipulation of evidence, and the influence of leftist ideology only serve to undermine the foundations of justice. As the city grapples with these issues, it is crucial that we hold our legal system accountable and demand fairness for all, regardless of political affiliation.

What are YOUR thoughts?

We want to hear from you. Please comment below to join the discussion.


  1. It is a crying shame when our court system allows a bias judge and stacked jury to make innocent/guilty decisions anywhere in our country. We were for many years proudly know to be a country that had a fair and unbiased court system based on facts only.

  2. Bias in the courts has been a long standing issue. Given the power and geographic area TV, radio and social broadcast in, it is clearly next impossible to get a neutral-unbiased pool to recruit from for a jury anywhere in the country. The prevailing political party in each state dictates the direction of potential jurors lean- period. It was exceptional to know that 50% of the pool from Trump’s bogus charges came forward stating they were bias. What concerns me is the truthfulness of those who claim they would be unbiased in the processing evidence. This is similar to the OJ Simpson trail whereas it is such a notorious defendant in a politically divisive environment, being on the jury would present potential fame and fortune. Anyone associated with the historic case could reap significant gains, just as we saw in the post Simpson case.

    When you have a hostile appearing judge as in this case, all juror candidates who accept being seated will be influenced by his actions as well already exhibited toward the defendant in the motions presented so far. Fear can become an underlying problem for any juror- of what? Retaliation, it not uncommon in highly publicized cases. Not a fair and balanced, equal justice environment.

  3. The democrats have been successful in changing the political scape of American cities. We are now, literally in regional political WARFARE. Half the population is secular, supports immoral idealogy, the other half, Religious,
    Or Practicing traditional morals.
    Whatever the outcome of the 24 presidential election-there’s going to be Irreparable CIVIL blowback.

  4. It is unfortunate that New York City is falling apart I really feel sorry for the people that still live there. The city can only recover when biased judges are removed from the bench and disbarred. Prosecutors must prosecute the people who are victimizing other people and when someone defends himself or others, that person should get a medal for being a good citizen. The Fire Department personnel who booed Letitia James were engaging in political speech. I am sure the personnel who booed Letitia James would also have booed a white prosecutor who had done what she has done. Since Alvin Bragg has elected to prosecute the alleged white collar crime (Trump) instead of the violent criminals on the street, he is not a competent prosecutor. Both Letitia James and Alvin Bragg should be disbarred for what they have done. Until the justice system is fixed in NYC, I recommend every conservative move out of New York state before the situation gets any worse

  5. The Judicial systems in New York and Wasington DC ARE A TOTAL DISGRACE TO
    AMERICA. The prosectors like James and Bragg have no concept of fair and impartial
    justice. They are nothing more than ignorant,
    They need to be DISBARRED.
    The two judges in the current Trump
    cases demonstrated prejudices BEFORE
    the trials, their IMMEDIATE family members
    expressing frequent anti-Trump statements.
    One family member PROFITING FINANCIALLY
    from anti-Trump bias. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE
    THEMSELVES. Jury selection is completely


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here