We’re only about a month into the Biden impeachment inquiry. The Dems and their propaganda ministry have already settled on their narrative. They claim there is no direct evidence of any Biden wrongdoing, and the Republicans are vicious semi-fascist MAGA hooligans for even suggesting it. I don’t know if the party that institutionalized criminal investigations of political opponents can sell the “it’s wrong to investigate one’s political opponent” narrative, but we’ll see.
As for the evidence against President “Big Guy,” the left is conveniently ignoring the fact that the investigation is in its infancy, and trying to confuse Americans about the nature of evidence. They’re implying that evidence must provide absolute proof of guilt. Well, that’s not how our legal system works.
Granted, impeachment is a political rather than criminal proceeding, and doesn’t necessarily follow the same rules. But Joe is being accused of actual “high crimes” – not simply making a phone call that bothered a Lt. Colonel With delusions of grandeur. Given that, I think it’s fair to discuss Joe’s impeachment in criminal terms.
Evidence is rarely proof in an “absolute” sense. In criminal matters, it’s hard for evidence to rule out all possible alternative explanations for events. In our system of justice, the evidence only needs to rule out probable (i.e., reasonable) alternative explanations for a finding of guilt.
Pieces of evidence are merely clues. They’re hints about what happened. The prosecution puts forth a theory for how those hints explain actual events. Sometimes those hints are weak and the evidence is called “circumstantial.” Sometimes the hints are strong and the evidence is called a “smoking gun.” But even a pistol with smoke rolling out of the barrel isn’t proof by itself that the weapon killed anyone.
It’s up to a jury to use the clues presented to them to reach a judgement. If the evidence supports the prosecution’s theory of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the jury is to return a guilty judgement. If there are reasonable alternative explanations for the evidence, the jury is to return a not guilty verdict – because reasonable doubt exists.
If a bloody knife is found sticking out of a dead person, and bears the fingerprints of the suspect, it is not proof of a crime. Perhaps the victim borrowed the knife from the suspect and then impaled himself on the knife during an accident. There may be a reasonable alternative explanation for the actual events. It would be for a jury to decide.
But what if there were additional clues presented at trial? Would the jury be more likely to convict if: the defendant had recently threatened the victim, there was no indication of an accident, the victim had multiple stab wounds, witnesses saw the defendant carrying a similar knife that day, and the defendant was geotracked in the area at the same time. With all of that, the murder theory seems a bit more credible, and the accident theory considerably less reasonable. Most jurors would conclude that the defendant had murdered the victim because the evidence in support of the prosecution theory is overwhelming. It tips the scales held by the blindfolded lady.
Which brings me back to the Biden impeachment inquiry. The evidence of wrongdoing may not be a “smoking gun,” but is becoming overwhelming nonetheless.
- Hunter and James Biden actively marketed the family brand to foreign customers. Witnesses have testified that Joe Biden is the “brand.”
- Emails directed withholding 10 percent of the funds earned from sales of the brand for the “big guy.”
- Vice President Joe Biden met with clients of Hunter Biden. That means Joe gave access to the people paying Hunter for access.
- A witness claims that Joe and Hunter each received $5 million to kill an investigation of Ukrainian company Burisma (Hunter’s employer).
- Joe Biden publicly bragged that while Vice President he leveraged $1 billion of our money to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired – thus killing an investigation of Burisma. It was later learned that the firing was counter to the US State Department’s position on the prosecutor.
- It has been discovered that after the Obama administration, Biden illegally possessed classified documents associated with Ukraine, which his son had access to.
- Bank records show that Biden family members received tens of millions of dollars, from foreign actors, funneled through multiple shell companies, for no apparent product or legitimate service. The money came from China, Russia, and Ukraine. One such payment was a wire transfer to Hunter Biden in the amount of $260K, listing Joe Biden’s residence as the beneficiary.
- IRS whistleblowers investigating Hunter Biden have testified that the Biden DOJ prevented them from taking any investigatory steps which had a potential to lead to Joe Biden.
While the clues were piling up, Joe Biden was funding Ukraine’s war, allowing the Chinese to make reconnaissance flights over the continental US, and hindering any investigation into the Chinese origin of COVID. Does anyone sense a quid for a quo in any of that?
The predominant theory for the evidence is that Hunter sold access to his father, while Joe was serving as the Vice President and President. In exchange for funds routed through Biden family members, Joe acted to benefit foreign actors, and jeopardized US national interests. If proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that’s a big deal – bordering on treason.
Which brings me back to the claim by Biden supporters that there is no proof that Joe committed any crime. They’re implying that there is a reasonable doubt of wrongdoing. But a reasonable doubt requires a reasonable alternative explanation for the evidence. So, what is it? Is anyone offering an alternative explanation – reasonable or otherwise? Nope. It’s all: look over there, another Trump indictment!
But without a reasonable alternative explanation for the evidence, there is no reasonable doubt about guilt. In legal terms, that makes Biden guilty.
Lacking an alternative explanation, perhaps the left is going for nullification instead. Nullification is where a jury (the Senate in this case) disregards the law and the evidence in reaching its judgement. In such a case, jurors have substituted their own sense of justice for the rule of law. They shouldn’t do it. But nothing prevents them from doing it.
They may do it because they think the law is wrong and they refuse to punish anyone for breaking it.
They may nullify because they think the law is being unjustly applied – rather like Merrick Garland ignoring pro-abortion vandals, and prosecuting pro-life protesters.
Or jurors may just like the defendant more than the victim and have decided to substitute their preference for actual justice.
Given that the left started howling “not guilty” before even seeing the evidence, we can expect a nullification verdict from Democrat senators if the House approves articles of impeachment.
Would they be nullifying because they think it shouldn’t be illegal for politicians to undermine US interests for gratuities? If so, I’d love to hear them say it publicly.
Would they be exonerating Biden because they think the guy that weaponized the federal government against his political adversaries is being unfairly targeted himself?
Or do they intend to vote “not guilty” because of their personal preference? Do they simply prefer power over justice. Will their vote against the removal of Joe Biden in fact be a vote in support of tyranny?
Author Bio: John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He has written for American Thinker, and American Free News Network. He can be followed on Facebook or reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at email@example.com Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA