
<p>The Report by Special Counsel Robert Hur investigating President Biden’s possession of government documents – including highly classified documents – has determined that there is no need to prosecute. ; That conclusion would be understandable if the report had exonerated Biden from illegal possession of those documents. ; But nooo! ; It read like an indictment.</p>



<p>The Report said that Biden “knowingly” and “willingly” possessed classified government documents &#8212; a violation of the law. ; That he “knew” many of the documents were classified at the highest level. That he knew at the time that he was not authorized to take them. ; And that he shared some of the documents with others who were not authorized to see them. ; The Report indicated that Biden had lied to investigators on three occasions.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Biden falsely claimed that he did not have any classified documents even those he had quite a few.</li>



<li>He claimed all documents were kept in locked files, when even highly classified documents were found in damaged cardboard boxes in his garage.</li>



<li>Biden claimed he never showed the documents to others, but evidence established that he did, including classified documents.</li>



<li>He claimed he did “not recall” receiving a briefing from the National Archives over handling of such documents – and that he did not know he was supposed to return them &#8212; even though he signed a document acknowledging the briefing.</li>
</ol>



<p>In response to a question, Hur said the lies were not material to the investigation and did not influence the outcome. Really?</p>



<p>Hur also stirred the debate over Biden’s age and mental acuity. ; In the Report, Hur wrote that Biden’s memory was “significantly limited.” ; Hur said Biden had “diminished faculties in advancing age.” ; He described Biden “as struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.”</p>



<p>Why would Hur go into such detail regarding the mental acuity issue? ; Simple. ; In justifying his decision to not prosecutor further, Hur claimed that Biden’s memory would make it difficult to win a conviction. ; The Report stated that “We also have considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would present himself to a jury, as he did in our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”</p>



<p>Ironically, the strongest arguments for not recommending an indictment to the Department of Justice were based on two things unrelated to the possible crime – Biden’s current mental condition and a comparative analysis with the Trump case. </p>



<p>Hur’s Report stressed the differences between Biden and Trump. ; The Report said that Biden returned the documents upon request. ; He fully cooperated with investigators – a claim that conflicts with the lies he told investigators.</p>



<p>Conversely, Trump is accused of resisting the return of documents, concealing evidence and other obstructionist activities. ; Fair enough. ; Those are legitimate distinctions in the two cases. ; BUT &#8230; is that a basis for such different decisions? ; The political class on the left will say “yes.” ; But that does not make it true.</p>



<p>Personally, I question the fact that Hur would put so much of his decision on the Trump case. ; In fact, is there a legal basis for deciding an outcome in one case based on such comparisons?  ;No. ; Such comparisons are usually reserved for sentencing, but not when considering an indictment. ; In fact, courts often bar such comparisons as prejudicial in determining guilt. ;</p>



<p>Essentially, Hur appears to have made his decision to disregard Biden’s culpability based on Trump acting worse and Biden having obvious mental acuity issues.</p>



<p>CNN legal analyst Eric Honig did not see either of those as determinant considerations in terms of the commission of a crime. ; He said that at best the decision not to indict was a close call – right on the edge. ; He said he was surprised with the outcome in view of the incriminating evidence Hur cited in the Report.</p>



<p>Honig also shot down Hur’s contention that the state of Biden’s memory today is grounds for declining to prosecute. ; To question Biden’s understanding of his actions, Hur would have had to establish memory problems at the time the documents were taken.</p>



<p>To understand the torrent of criticism that resulted from the Report, think of it as bank robbery. ; One defendant admits guilt and returns the money. ; The other does not and goes to extremes to thwart the investigation. ; The second defendant may incur more charges or harsher punishment, but that does not mean the other bank robber deserves a get out of jail free card. ; It may also serve as an example of how the rule-of-law is superseded by the rule-of-man – called prosecutorial discretion.</p>



<p>In the crazy world of law and politics, the decision to not charge Biden may be a small gift to Trump. ; There is such a thing in law called “discriminatory prosecution.” ; It means that a person is unfairly prosecuted while others with similar charges are not. ; It is not an easy point to win in a court-of-law, but you can bet Trump’s lawyers will be using it in his documents case.</p>



<p>Regardless of the controversy, the legal threat to Biden is over. ; Or is it? ; If Trump returns to the White House, what is to prevent him from re-opening the investigation? ; And at a time when Biden no longer enjoys immunity from prosecution. ; ; There is no double jeopardy because Biden was never tried and found innocent. ; It was an administrative outcome to not prosecute, not a judicial determination of innocence or guilt. ; Apart from the legal arguments, the Democrats’ decision to mount criminal legal actions against former President Trump could set a precedent that bites Biden in the butt. ; If justice does not work, karma often does.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Biden evades the long arm of the law
