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:
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.