With the release of special counsel Robert Hur’s report on President Biden’s handling of classified documents, it appears we are once again facing a Hillary Clinton-James Comey moment. Where everyone was outraged that Clinton wouldn’t be held to account for blatantly violating the Espionage Act and then defying the Justice Department by destroying evidence on her private server, the American people should be doubly outraged at Hur’s conclusion not to recommend legal action against Biden.
With the release of special counsel Robert Hur’s report on President Biden’s handling of classified documents, it appears we are once again facing a Hillary Clinton-James Comey moment. Where everyone was outraged that Clinton wouldn’t be held to account for blatantly violating the Espionage Act and then defying the Justice Department by destroying evidence on her private server, the American people should be doubly outraged at Hur’s conclusion not to recommend legal action against Biden.
Hur’s special counsel investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.” This is an incontrovertible violation of the Espionage Act and a crime that anyone else (but Clinton) would be charged for. Yet, it was announced that the Justice Department will not charge Biden in the matter, Hur saying, “no criminal charges are warranted.”
So what was the basis for letting Biden skate on committing a crime that is not far from the seriousness of treason? As Hur put it in his announcement:
“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory…Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify a reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”
Two immediate points come to mind.
First, unless Hur is a soothsayer or can see into the future; unless he is an omnipotent being, then he cannot know what a jury will think or do. Therefore, his contentions about the jury are all speculation and should not be considered in calculating whether or not the Justice Department should pursue any prosecution of Biden.
Second, unless Hur is a board-certified physician qualified to diagnose cognitive disorders, his opinion on the mental state of the President is irrelevant. In fact, his non-expert “testimony” – via his comments – complicates matters where the public and their elected representatives' consideration of the execution of the 25th Amendment is concerned.
Hur’s purview was – specifically – to determine whether or not a crime had occurred. His report – in conclusion of his investigation – determined a crime was committed. Therefore, Hur has to report that fact to his superiors and reserve his personal opinions for bravado sessions with his friends. His opinions on the matter are irrelevant. Only the facts uncovered are relevant.
So, for the second time in less than eight years, senior members of a presidential administration – who do not enjoy presidential immunity – are not charged with crimes that they did, in fact, commit. Where Biden was found to have illegally held classified documents, Clinton was found to have illegally held classified documents as well, Comey said in his final determination:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information…there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.”
Now, given the kid gloves with which Clinton and Biden are being handled – and how the administration of justice is being obstructed, how is it even possible to attempt to deny Donald Trump his right to be on any state Presidential Election ballot when he has already been acquitted of charges claiming insurrection?
Colorado’s supreme court used the basis of Donald Trump being guilty of insurrection to move their ridiculous claim through the process that saw that state attempt to remove Trump’s name from the ballot.
That determination was also used in Maine where a totalitarian Secretary of State unilaterally attempted to remove Trump from that state’s ballots.
The determination – un-adjudicated – is the basis for the entire argument to disqualify Trump from any ballot for the 2024 General Election.
But unless we are suspending the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, no adjudication of insurrection can be leveled at the former President.
But, wait Frank? When did Trump stand trial for insurrection?
The highest legal authority in the United States where presidential misconduct is adjudicated is the Legislative Branch through the execution of the impeachment process. The “indictment” is executed in the US House of Representatives in the form of the actual impeachment, and the “trail” takes place in the US Senate with the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presiding.
The second time the impeachment-happy Democrats, under US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), politicized the provision, the 117th US Congress adopted one article of impeachment against Trump – “incitement of insurrection” – stating that he had incited the January 6 attack of the US Capitol. Mr. Trump was found to be indictable according to the majority Democrat chamber.
Trump stood “trial” in the US Senate on charges of “incitement of insurrection” on February 9, 2021, a trial which ended on February 13, 2021, with an acquittal on the single charge leveled against him. The jury (the Senate) voted 57-43 to acquit, some 10 votes short of the two-thirds needed to remove a sitting president. Trump was acquitted on the charge of “incitement to insurrection.”
Let me say that again for those with an attention span problem. Donald Trump was acquitted of “incitement to insurrection” in the only court with authority over presidential misconduct on February 13, 2021.
Acquitted.
So, barring the repeal of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against Double Jepoeardy, any jurisdiction or authority – any news media outlet or pundit – still abusing the idea that Trump is an insurrectionist is criminally violating his Fifth Amendment right to protection from being charged twice for the same perceived crime.
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton get to commit crimes and walk away from any charges because, well, we just don’t indict sitting presidents or secretaries of state (insert eye-roll here). But Donald Trump has his Fifth Amendment rights suspended so he can be exposed to illegal and unconstitutional political persecution?
I don’t know why the brain trust around Trump isn’t doing this, but his lawyers should be suing the pants off everyone and anyone still abusing the notion that he is an insurrectionist for violating the former president’s constitutional rights.
When we come back, our regular end-of-week segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast on the Salem and Genesis Communications Networks.
Take Back Your Mind...Think For Yourself...Support Independent Journalism
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
