Lee Jae-myung's Approval Rating at Risk of Falling Below 30%; Intra-party Criticism Deepens

Particularly concerning is that only 18% of those in their 20s have a positive evaluation, while 79.5% have a negative evaluation.

The host emphasized the seriousness of the declining approval rating, stating, "Lee Jae-myung's opinion poll rating of 30% is now also precarious. Kim Eo-jun said that at this rate, the leading digit will become 2, meaning he will see the 20% range, and in less than a month, Kim Eo-jun's curse, or rather, non-curse, is coming true." In Kim Eo-jun's 'Kkot' poll, Lee also recorded an approval rating in the 30% range, spreading a sense of crisis.

Former Minister Jo Guk has also publicly targeted Lee Jae-myung, intensifying criticism of the Democratic Party's strategy for expanding its base.

These remarks, combined with former Minister Choo Mi-ae's criticism of Lee Jae-myung, indicate a mood of 'insubordination' within the left-wing camp. Some within the party are sensing a growing crisis, believing that the situation surrounding Lee Jae-myung is similar to that during former President Roh Moo-hyun's impeachment. This could exacerbate the leadership vacuum and confusion within the Democratic Party.

He pointed out that Lee Jae-myung's unfavorability rating was 60% from the beginning of the presidential election, assessing that he was barely sustained by the image of being 'anti-Yoon.' This analysis suggests that Lee Jae-myung's current decline in approval rating is not a short-term phenomenon but stems from a structural problem.

Former Chief Judge Jeon Sang-bum emphasized the seriousness of the current situation, stating, "Not being able to exercise personnel authority in this situation means that the President has reached a point where he cannot properly exercise his powers." he pointed out.

This is linked to the direction of prosecutorial reform and leads to criticism of the President's control over state administration. Some even claim that specific forces are effectively limiting the President's personnel power.

The debate surrounding the allocation of investigative personnel to the public prosecution office is leading to criticism that the substantive meaning of prosecutorial reform could be diluted. Given that a rational reform would entail sufficient investigative personnel in the public prosecution office, questions are being raised about the background of this directive.

This raises concerns that the reform of the prosecution could be distorted in a way that weakens the prosecution's investigative capabilities and only strengthens its prosecution functions. Consequently, there is criticism that the original intent of prosecutorial reform, which the public expected, could be diluted.

Former Chief Judge Jeon Sang-bum countered, "When he says 'President Lee Jae-myung was also stabbed in the back,' I think this isn't protecting Lee Jae-myung, but rather saying Lee Jae-myung is nothing." He pointed out that such remarks ultimately undermine the President's authority.

Claims that the President was unaware of major issues amplify doubts about the transparency and accountability of state administration. This leads to criticism that it could weaken the President's leadership and cause confusion in state affairs.

It is claimed that reports of hamster deaths and side effects after drug administration were omitted. Former Chief Judge Jeon Sang-bum provided specific circumstances, stating, "I think deletion is more accurate than omission. On page 27 of the first-instance judgment, there's a memo saying 'deletion requested' under 'Comprehensive Opinion of the Second Test,' where serious symptoms were observed."

The essence of the suspicion is that data was concealed and approval was pushed through after lobbying. The first-instance judgment (page 27) revealed the existence of a 'deletion requested' memo, strongly suggesting intentional data concealment. This raises serious questions about the fairness and transparency of the clinical trial.

These allegations suggest not just simple omission but intentional deletion, which could be a fatal blow to Kim Seung-won's moral character. Especially as a nominee for Minister of Justice, a thorough explanation regarding these allegations is required.

In particular, the Democratic Party deputy spokesperson's remarks regarding the hamster poison controversy are interpreted as an attempt to divert the issue without scientific basis, causing public outrage.

Former Chief Judge Jeon Sang-bum emphasized, "There must have been people who participated in the clinical trial. Whether it's 70 or 90, the number isn't exact. They need to be quickly investigated to see if there are any side effects and what drugs were administered." He urged for prompt confirmation of their side effects and administered drugs.

There is growing demand to confirm whether ineffective or poisonous drugs were administered and to take immediate legal action if necessary.

Considering that approval procedures usually get delayed with more supplementation requests, this case is highly unusual. Therefore, there is a growing call for a thorough investigation into whether illegal intervention occurred in the clinical approval process.

This is an issue directly related not only to the fairness of drug approval but also to public health rights, making swift clarification of the facts urgent.

Kim's attitude, which also contradicts the confirmation results from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, amplifies doubts about his credibility.

In particular, a connection is suspected between Yang's stock purchase and Kim Seung-won's lobbying, leading to increased calls for a thorough investigation.

This additional complaint is expected to further burden Kim Seung-won's legal responsibility, and significant repercussions are anticipated depending on the future investigation results.

He stated, "It's like this: if you're confident, you get acquitted, and if you're confident, you get the charges dismissed." He asserted that it is principled to seek a substantive judgment through the judicial system.

This means that when facing legal issues, one should not avoid them but prove one's innocence in court. He emphasized that a fair trial process is essential to uncover the truth of the accusations.

This assertion demonstrates a commitment to safeguarding judicial independence.

If the Blue House continues to infringe upon the right to nominate, it could lead to a constitutional crisis beyond a mere administrative controversy.

This is an issue that could undermine trust in the fairness and independence of judges, potentially deepening public distrust in the judicial system.