Pages

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Would The Biden/Ukraine Laptop Info Have Been Exculpatory At Impeachment?

Over the last few days I've seen a large amount of criticism directed at AG Barr for not revealing some of the Biden/Ukraine scandal that we've seen was on the Hunter Biden laptop--information that we have to presume Barr knew about at the time of Trump's fake impeachment. The constant theme of the criticism is that the evidence on the laptop would have been "exculpatory" for Trump. But would that information really have been exculpatory?

The short answer--and there is a longer answer--is probably: No. At least not in a strictly legal sense. You can see the reasoning for this response in a twitter exchange from this morning:

Replying to
Ok, while Joe Biden was not in office at the time (May 2017), it certainly calls into question the ethics of the Biden family & also validates 's concern re: Hunter in Ukraine. Ship, would this have been considered "exculpatory evidence" in the impeachment trial?
No. The issue wasn't whether Trump was justified in his request to the Ukraine Pres, the issue was whether Trump improperly linked US gov't action - already approved by Cong - to something he wanted Ukraine to do. It was always a BS charge, but it was all the Dems had.

On the other hand ...

This is a standard prosecutorial way of looking at the question. As such, on those terms, it's perfectly correct. However, an impeachment trial is not the same as a criminal trial before a court rather than a political body like the Senate. The Senate can allow in pretty much whatever it wants, and the senators can vote based pretty much on whatever reasons they choose to consider.

To my way of thinking, the way to evaluate this would be to frame the issue slightly differently. Rather than speaking about "exculpatory" evidence at the impeachment trial, it might be more apt to consider: Would there ever have been a fake impeachment if the Dem House knew that the Biden/Ukraine information--the information that we're all now privy to--could be dropped on them? That way of framing the issue, I believe, places it in the properly political perspective in which it should be viewed.

I think the answer is: No, there never would have been a fake impeachment if the Dem House knew that Barr was in possession of this kind of documentary evidence of influence peddling on the part of the Biden Crime Family.

But there is a further consideration.

Yes, the fake impeachment was an outrage to our constitutional order. However, is it possible that it was, in the big scheme of things, a good thing. After all, when was the last time you heard a Dem mention it? Has it actually hurt Trump, or has it helped him?

Is it possible that, given what we're starting to see--the extension of Barr's investigating into the upper reaches of the entire Dem party, the Ukraine revelations, and now the China revelations that appear to implicate the entire non-gerontocratic leadership of the Dem party--this "delay" may turn out for the far greater good?

It's certainly a calculated gamble, if that was the consideration. I'm afraid hindsight will tell us, and in the meantime ... We vote! I did this morning.


16 comments:

  1. The impeachment was an injustice upon many other injustices.

    While I can list a couple of things beneficial to Trump due to the impeachment, I believe the vast majority of people do not care one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even *if* the vast majority of people do not care, the ones who do really do.
      When the Dems chose that road, they attacked the Const. order on which our freedom depends.
      Those who do care are unlikely to twiddle their thumbs, while the Dems impose Maoism upon them.
      (See Zman yesterday, on "Insurrection Then Revolution".)
      Those who don't care, will likely end up paying dearly for their myopia.

      Delete
    2. I care about the abuse of Congress' authority for political persecution, but not about the impeachment itself because it was such a transparently fraudulent and baseless product of said abuse. It was the equivalent of the democrats running up behind Trump and taping a "Bad Orange Man" sign to his back.

      Delete
  2. I believe there was an agreement between US and Ukraine signed in 1996 that required Ukraine to cooperate with US to ferry out corruption.


    Rob S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you meant "ferret out".

      Delete
  3. The fam voted Monday and yesterday (FL early voting in person!) Four for Trump!

    I agree with what you are saying, the word exculpatory in a legal sense gets heavy. However politically, it was very exculpatory and would have iced the quid pro Joe cake nicely.

    I am at my wit's end with the DOJ ignoring crime in a two tiered system. The historical is getting to be decades deep now and overly obvious that plucking one feather will cost you the duck.

    This started with the pardoning of the Nixon adminstration and had become the customary norm for each administration to ignore and over look the lasts crimes. It has to stop because as we've seen with no fear there are no limits to the abuse that transpires.

    At this point who can be trusted to investigate anyone anymore? Graymail, blackmail, extortion, state secrets, affairs, spying, pedophilia, money laundering, trafficking, murder, tax evasion, pay for play.

    There were very solid cases against Clinton Inc in the same ways. One was just brought back to life in tax court a week or two ago.

    This stuff has to stop... NOW! The DOJ is going to have to learn how to keep pace with the rate, otherwise what's the point?

    Additionally there is also a Republican crime cartel going on that needs to be addressed. Sibel Edmonds did a magnificent job of teaching us that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Forest for the trees. The arcane issue of whether the Biden laptop evidence is exculpatory ignores the larger and far more serious issue of . . . is the DOJ/FBI broken, or worse, has it evolved into a corrupt criminal enterprise masquerading as a law enforcement institution. If the latter, then Trump's impeachment is of trivial consequence compared to the cancer in our Federal Government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Most members in congress wanted to ignore the corruption issue at the time. My gut feeling is there is a lot of similar corruption by relatives of members of congress. Aswan Brothers is a great example of congress ignoring illegal acts. So short term it would have been nice if released, but little practical impact. Perhaps Biden would not be the nominee. But with how Weiners laptop content has disappeared, I am doubtful any real impact.

    Longer term there is a possibility on the corruption / money laundering, but with the history of ignoring crimes By the doj and fbi by allies of the deep state, I am skeptical...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Emails show that Biden group knew they were working with Chinese intelligence

    https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2020/10/23/emails-show-that-biden-group-knew-they-were-working-with-chinese-intelligence/

    ...This is something that US intelligence should have picked up. If it did, it would have been the duty of the intelligence community leadership – either then-CIA Director John Brennan or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brennan has accused Trump of actions constituting (nothing short of) treason and regularly describes him as an existential threat to the United States. But he never explains why other than pillorying him for merely talking to Putin.

    Since I don't trust Brennan for one second, I've been keeping a list of all the not-so-good reasons why he might be doing this (as in: what's he hiding).

    Now I'll add protecting the Bidens' foreign corruption to the already long list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Brennan has accused Trump of actions constituting (nothing short of) treason and regularly describes him as an existential threat to the United States. But he never explains why"

      No, just the constant assertion of "crimes" from the Left. Never any details of these alleged "crimes". Only demands that the entire Trump administration be "prosecuted for their crimes". It's all very Soviet.

      Delete
  8. @Mark

    "the China revelations that appear to implicate the entire non-gerontocratic leadership of the Dem party"

    Why do you give the gerontocratic leadership a pass? Doesn't the massive corruption implicate them all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not giving the gerontocrats a "pass." I'm noting that the Chinese appear to have a definite focus on recruiting--via financial involvement--all the governors and senators who they think could have a shot at the presidency in the future. Gerontocrat Biden was their opening to them (as well as a near term recruitment). The point is that the Chinese are clearly planning for the long term.

      Delete
    2. Could be they already have the gerontocrats in hand. Joe is many things but imaginative is not one of them. Brennan was doing a lot more than just, "protecting the Bidens' foreign corruption." Reid, Feinstein, Clinton, Kerry, all Kennedys, Dodd, et.al. The Senate has always been the most obviously corruptible part of our system since it was first sworn in. The 17th merely gave it the imprimatur of "democracy" so that genuinely common criminals could aspire to be part of it.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    3. The scope and depth of the corruption, the willingness of the ruling class to sell out the country, is stunning.

      Delete
    4. @Mark

      "The point is that the Chinese are clearly planning for the long term."

      Dan Bongino suggested today that the entire China/Biden relationship was never about a business relationship and always about cultivating a control relationship with the "Biden Crime Family" for, as you say, the "long term".

      And they almost got away with it.

      Delete