Ambitious Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has long elevated political hackery to a garish modern art approximation. In berating former special counsel Robert Hur in a Tuesday hearing, Schiff added more ugly brush strokes to his ugly canvas.
Schiff, running interference for ethically compromised President Joe Biden, blasted Hur for noting the president’s repeated mental lapses during Hur’s investigation. On multiple occasions, Schiff accused Hur of having “gratuitously” “shape[d]” the report “for political reasons.”
Hur had entered his special counsel role with a sterling reputation across the political spectrum, and he was chosen for the job by Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland. Hur found not just evidence but proof that for years, Biden had improperly and knowingly kept classified documents and had noted their classifications to others. Yet, in a decision that should have pleased Schiff and other partisan Democrats, Hur chose not to recommend prosecution.
In submitting the required report to the attorney general about his investigation, Hur was duty-bound to explain both what he discovered and why he recommended against prosecution despite finding technically criminal behavior. Just as was the case when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution despite massive violations of government record-keeping regulations, Hur’s primary reason not to pursue charges was that it would be difficult to secure a jury conviction. This is commonplace prosecutorial discretion.
Usually, such decision-making is confidential within the Justice Department, but precedent with respect to high-profile special counsels is for the attorney general to release the report to the public. Schiff’s attack of the vapors came because he didn’t want made public why his party’s leader, Biden, was let off the hook despite obvious misdeeds. Schiff wanted the appearance of exoneration without the explanation.
Hur, though, had to explain why a jury likely wouldn’t convict. In this case, he couldn’t claim the evidence is sketchy. The evidence is strong. Nonetheless, he wrote, “Biden would likely present himself to a jury … as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” In doing so, Hur obviously had to give concrete examples of that poor memory. Without the examples, the explanation would have made no sense. Without the explanation, the decision not to prosecute would have made no sense. This is unassailable logic, and entirely apolitical.
Schiff’s contentions were farcical. He ignored the actual point of Hur mentioning the memory lapses — the impression they would make on a jury — and instead suggested this was a mere matter of Biden being careful to be accurate.
“There is nothing more common with a witness of any age when asked about events that are years old to say, ‘I do not recall,’” Schiff said. “Indeed, they’re instructed by their attorney to do that if they have any question about it.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
But the memory problems didn’t involve hedging over documents, nor anything about which a lawyer would counsel Biden. They were instead multiple and very odd lapses about basic life events. Hur’s point was that a jury asked to adjudge a president’s culpability would not take kindly to a prosecutor badgering him over truthfulness if the falsities seemed to stem from old age, with Biden being age’s victim, rather than from Biden’s habitual and discreditable dishonesty.
Biden is both a lawbreaker and a man of diminished capacity. Schiff should thank Hur for letting the latter infirmity excuse Biden’s legal transgressions.