In D.C you can indict a Democrat ham sandwich, but you can’t eat it.

[The phrase “Indict a ham sandwich” is credited to Sol Wachtler, a NY State Chief Judge in 1988.]

It is a lesson that Robert K. Hur may have learned from former Special Counsel John Durham.

In the context of The Durham Report, Durham indicted Michael Sussman, an attorney at the Perkins Coie law firm with close ties to the Democrat Party, for pretending to be a good citizen by offering false information to the F.B.I. in 2016 about alleged Trump campaign links to a Russian bank.

Washington D.C. jury would not convict Joe of intentional criminal behavior

In May 2022, a D.C. jury deliberated for six hours and found Sussman not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI. No surprise there.

Sussman’s defense team stated after his acquittal that: “Politics is no substitute for evidence, and politics has no place in our system of justice.”

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party governs justice in Washington, D.C. where, in the 2020 Presidential Election, Biden received 93% of the votes, and Trump 5.4%.

It’s a one-party town.

Here’s a key statement in the Executive Summary of The Hur Report wherein Hur states his unwillingness to support an indictment of Joe Biden:

“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 reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president (“former”- that’s odd language!) well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Today, several Democrat members of Congress struggle mightily to defend the false notion that The Hur Report exonerates Joe Biden. Their claim doesn’t pass the smell test.

Biden broke multiple laws related to the security requirements concerning classified U.S. Government documents, but Hur concluded that a Washington D.C. jury would not convict Joe of intentional criminal behavior.

In a footnote, Hur cites this provision in the U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Manual section 9-27.220 – Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution.

It reads, in part:

“Where the law and the facts create a sound, prosecutable case, the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause is not a factor prohibiting prosecution. For example, in a civil rights case or a case involving an extremely popular political figure, it might be clear that the evidence of guilt – viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder – would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, yet the prosecutor might reasonably doubt, based on the circumstances, that the jury would verdict. In such a case, despite his/her negative assessment of the likelihood of a guilty verdict (based on factors extraneous to an objective view of the law and the facts) the prosecutor may properly conclude that it is necessary and appropriate to commence or recommend prosecution and allow the criminal process to operate in accordance with the principles set forth here.”

The chances of a D.C. jury convicting Joe Biden of committing crimes involving classified documents are—absolutely zero.

Washington D.C. is a one-party town. And it will remain so, until and unless the Republican Party (1) displays full-throated support if their party ever elects another President, and (2) increases their currently minimal efforts to take Congressional hearings, deliberations, and debates on the road, outside of the D.C. Beltway, to the broader nation and away from the Swamp.

Support Canada Free Press

VIEW Comments