The question is not, as some simpletons often seek to frame it, that too many criminal cases end in plea bargains rather than trials. They obviously do, and there are many reasons why this is the case as I’ve argued in the past. But in a new pitch to alter the calculus, Clark Neily goes to a place even darker than usual. Rather than argue that trials, rather than pleas, are necessary to vindicate the rights of the accused, Clark argues that it’s the right of the public to enjoy salacious legal content about the public figures they hate the most.
Think how much more we could learn about Biden-family influence peddling and the machinations of foreign agents if the charges against Hunter were litigated in open court, as the Constitution provides. Among other things, the relevant tax filings would have to be offered into evidence and there would be testimony about them, potentially including how Biden earned the income upon which he neglected to pay taxes, who paid him, and whether any other family members participated in the performance or the fruits of that labor. Those questions might lead to others, such as why the government appears to have cherry picked Biden’s least culpable tax shenanigans while turning a blind eye to more serious misconduct, as alleged by multiple IRS whistleblowers.
