I have now had five posts detailing the lay-down case that Joe Biden committed the federal crime of bribery (18 U.S.C Section 201(b)) with respect to the conduct of himself and his son in Ukraine. Those five posts consist of the four-part series “The Bidens: ‘Stone Cold Crooked,’” sequels (2), (3) and (4) to same, plus Sunday’s post “Biden v. Trump: Which One Is The ‘Bribe’?”

Meanwhile, over in what we continue to call the mainstream media, there has developed a mantra that there is “no evidence” that Joe Biden acted to help his son collect a bribe in Ukraine. Just yesterday, Eric Felten over at RealClearInvestigations put together a nice roundup of these ridiculous statements, including:

CBS News on November 9: “There is no evidence to support that claim.”

From The Hill: “There’s no evidence that Joe Biden was acting with his son’s interests in mind.”

From Esquire on November 9: [There is] no evidence Joe Biden made any effort to protect his son’s interests as Vice President.”

From the New York Times, September 22: “[N]o evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor’s dismissal.”
Felten has even more of these if you are interested.

What are we missing here? Actually, it’s what are they missing? What they are missing is a fundamental understanding of how motive or causation are proved in this world. This is something as to which we all have some instinctive understanding; but few ever think it through to articulate how it works. Fortunately, 40 years in the litigation business have given me plenty of time to think about this subject.

[link to www.manhattancontrarian.com (secure)]