re: Don Jr is tweeting about Hunter

quote:

---

I believe Baby B's testimony is relevant to determine whether there's a basis for reasonable suspicion on the part of Trump, to test legitimacy of Trump's defense along those lines. Questioning such as how and why Hunter landed the Burisma board spot and related inquiry as to his qualifications that only he can answer appropriately. Also whether and to what extent Joe may have had any interactions with Burisma or any of its board members while Hunter was a member. Perhaps inquiry as to Hunter's knowledge and understanding of the nature of any Ukrainian govt investigation of Burisma, specifically Victor Shokin actions and involvement of which Hunter may have been aware.

---

This analysis assumes that the propriety of the request should be judged ex post facto by determining whether the defendant was actually guilty of a crime. I submit that this is not the case.

Much like a request for a warrant, I think you have to judge the propriety of the request based upon the information available to the person making that request, at the time of the request. Either there was adequate info to request a warrant, or there was not. The fact that the cops found pot on the premises during the search DOES NOT mean that the search was legally-justified (though it is easy to anticipate that people who know nothing about the law will argue otherwise).

Thus, the ultimate question is NOT whether Baby Biden committed a crime (which I rather doubt), but rather whether Trump had information leading to a good faith belief that Baby Biden had committed a crime.

By all means, I think Trump would be allowed to present into evidence anything that he had in his possession which would have justified a request for law enforcement assistance from the Ukraine government.

Baby Biden‘s testimony can provide no evidence whatsoever as to the question of “what information did trump have at the time of the telephone call?“