TDS.  Trump was in office already for four years and was just a guy.  He had decent economics, good foreign policy, mid domestic affair handling like COVID.  Please stop terrorizing yourself with people's insane fanfic tier writing like this.  If you truly believe these things I can do the full explanation to you why you can rest easy on this fearmongering point by point, because this article seems engineered only to try to horrify low information voters and can be fixed by just learning more about current events.  On its surface, we should find it hard to believe that "autocracy" is the fear here if they're not criticizing the Biden DOJ targeting political opponents to jail them leading up to the election when this article hysterically cries wolf about Trump abusing or circumventing the justice system when he didn't even follow through on, "Because you'd be in jail" during his first presidency.

Trump’s DOJ was independent during his first administration. Given his actions after his defeat, and statements made since then, we have strong reason to doubt that would be the case in a second term. Do you think he’s constantly asked about this for no reason?

And, if abuse of DOJ is a bad thing, then you should want Biden's DOJ out on principle.  Are you working on principles?

Ok, now let's go over what actually happened.

Biden team self-reported his documents and then handed them over to NARA. He was investigated by a Republican, who concluded that there shouldn't be charges because the case is so weak. Meanwhile, Trump blatantly stole some of the most sensitive material there is and hoarded it at his summer home. He refused to comply with NARA and lied to the FBI until they had to raid the compound. Later, he attempted to tamper with security footage after being subpoenaed.

If you really think the Biden case could be worthy of prosecution, and then consider the Trump prosecution to be a "show trial" (show trials that won't happen until after the election, weird) then you're just delusional. I'm not sure what more there is to be said.

https://apnews.com/article/classified-documents-biden-trump-special-counsel-b5589ea8f066ede51c8138665f108f7a

Biden team self-reported his documents and then handed them over to NARA. He was investigated by a Republican, who concluded that there shouldn't be charges because the case is so weak.

"In deciding not to charge Biden with any crimes, the special counsel wrote that in a potential trial, “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”"
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/-nightmare-special-counsels-assessment-bidens-mental-fitness-triggers-rcna137975

Meanwhile, Trump blatantly stole some of the most sensitive material there is and hoarded it at his summer home. He refused to comply with NARA and lied to the FBI until they had to raid the compound. Later, he attempted to tamper with security footage after being subpoenaed.

Trump was president when the documents were moved.  The FBI knew the documents were there and told him to lock them up.  They later raided (and also posed fake documents for photos to release).  The classified documents case for Trump was never a real thing to begin with anyway because the president has discretionary power of classification.  It was just the first of the lawfare to launch.  Hillary Clinton wasn't charged with her classified info in the thousands and giving access to that info to non-cleared individuals, or having staffers smash phones with hammers despite Comey acknowledging it fell under infractions of the law, they just refused to prosecute.

If you really think the Biden case could be worthy of prosecution

He would be under American law, yes.  Quite a number of people involved in these sordid affairs are.  Now Merrick Garland is in violation of the same law that Steve Bannon went to jail for this week (and Peter Navarro I think?).  There are many people who should be facing prosecution under the letter of the law who are not. 

and then consider the Trump prosecution to be a "show trial" (show trials that won't happen until after the election, weird) then you're just delusional. I'm not sure what more there is to be said.

A "show trial" is a trial meant to be political lawfare to lock up or impede political opponents from participating in democratic elections in the political context.  The charges against trump fall under that definition.

>Classified documents
President has discretionary classification power, and also this may be rendered double moot by the Supreme Court ruling.  This was never a serious case.  Biden nor Clinton were charged for mishandling of classified documents despite their actions falling within the definitions of the crimes, and they were not president at the time of their offenses.

>Civil Fraud
As any businessman has said since this case started, Trump didn't do anything that anyone in New York business didn't do.  He went to get a loan, put up a property with his own appraisal, bank did their own appraisal in turn and found a different value than Trump found, they negotiated and came to an agreement, the loan was paid out and paid back and the bank was happy to do more business because this is normal business.  The "victim" of the fraud said they weren't defrauded.  This is how property evaluation works.  The purpose of this was just the unprecedented $355million fine to damage the campaign.  You can further see this in the Mar-A-Lago evaluations where a tax evaluator valued it at $18-26million while Trump valued it in the hundreds of millions, which is closer to the actual real estate value of properties in the area.  It's not fraudulent for a property owner to highly value their own property through their own sources, and you can go on real estate listing right now and see people doing the same in the same area and not being charged with fraud because this is literally how the normal adult world works.

>Defamation and Sexual Assault
E. Jean Carroll claimed Trump assaulted her sexually in broad daylight in New York in 1995 or 1996 in a popular business.  There was no evidence for this, hence why this was not brought to criminal trial and instead was held as a civil case in the Democrat jurisdiction so they could get the civil suit paid out.  The "defamation" in this case was literally Trump denying these unfounded allegations.  As well, New York introduced a new law specifically so this could happen beyond statute of limitations, then undid that law within a year.

>"Hush money" case
Trump was charged with a misdemeanor crime of falsifying business records, the evidence for which fell to the testimony of Michael Cohen who once was convicted of lying on the stand and also admitted to stealing $30,000 from Trump while on the stand this time around.  No evidence was presented that Trump instructed altering or misfiling money on business records.  It's also not illegal to pay someone not to come out with a story, it's common in political campaigning to buy the rights to a story to not have it printed.  Regardless, this misdemeanor crime was upgraded to a felony because if the business records are falsified in furtherance of an underlying crime then it can be upgraded.  No underlying crime has even been proposed, let alone proven, and the jury was instructed to just pick one of three crimes it could be in their decision making.  Meanwhile, the jury was able to see the media and stories saying that any jury member who didn't vote to convict would become the next Steve Bartman or worse.  These charges are filed in Democrat districts for easy jury selection.

The only way to not know all of this is to simply not pay attention to what's happening with America's justice system being abused by people in power to try to hamper a political opponent.  All of this is literally public record.  Even a CNN host admitted "This case would never have been brought against someone whose name was not Donald Trump" on the "hush money" case.  They are preying on the fact that all the average American voter will see is a headline that says, "TRUMP CONVICTED ON 36 CHARGES" and "CONVICTED FELON DONALD TRUMP" and not read anything further abotu the situation, and they're correct.  It's simply boring Trump Derangement Syndrome propagandizing and the polls show most Americans are smart enough to see through it, it's not working anymore on anyone who pays the loosest bit of attention beyond headlines.

So yes, if you are truly working on principles, and your principle is that "The justice system should not be partisan nor abused to go after political opponents," then you must be against the legal cases being brought to hamper the leading candidate for the presidency right now given the facts of the cases.  Or, you're not at all working on principles and are in favor of political lawfare if it's against someone you've been programmed to not like.

"In deciding not to charge Biden with any crimes, the special counsel wrote that in a potential trial, “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”"

As I said, a weak case.

Trump was president when the documents were moved [...] the president has discretionary power of classification.

Trump was neither president when the documents were being held, nor did he ever declassify them.

(and also posed fake documents for photos to release).

This is false.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-fbi-search/index.html

There are many people who should be facing prosecution under the letter of the law who are not.

First time learning about the American legal system?

If you were truly making a principled argument here, I could sympathize with you, but you're literally just using these examples to defend someone that violated the law far more flagrantly than anyone you've referenced.

A "show trial" is a trial meant to be political lawfare to lock up or impede political opponents from participating in democratic elections in the political context.  The charges against trump fall under that definition.

Just to be clear, you go on to litigate a bunch of trials that came from jurisdictions other than the DOJ (aside from the classified documents) and one that the DOJ actually passed on. I'm not intimately familiar with every single Trump legal issue, but I've heard experts claim he easily could have "won" some of these with better arguments. So hardly a "show trial".

I do wonder how you would explain Trump's legal issues before getting involved in politics, such as running a scam university, among others. Because from my perspective, it should be evidence of a pretty clear pattern of behavior, rather than a widespread conspiracy between multiple jurisdictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

I take issue with many other things that you've said but figure I might as well keep this somewhat succinct.