Who's DIM? Sarah Isgur Educates ABC's Jon Karl on Why Hur Cited Biden's Mental State

February 12th, 2024 12:34 PM

It’s always amazing when liberal Democrats who pride themselves on their scintillating intellect act so uneducated when it’s time to rally around the Democrat in trouble.

On Sunday’s This Week, ABC host Jonathan Karl and his Democrat legal expert Preet Bharara needed Republican legal expert Sarah Isgur to explain the obvious about why special counsel Robert Hur would suggest President Biden was too mentally challenged to stand trial for improperly taking classified documents before he was president.

First, Karl repeated ABC's slimy habit in the introductions: “Sarah Isgur is the former spokesperson for the Justice Department during the Trump administration and is now a senior editor at The Dispatch. Preet Bharara is the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.”

A fair and balanced journalist would note Isgur’s Trump link…and Bharara being appointed U.S. Attorney by President Obama in 2009, where he served for eight years. Karl could have noted Preetinder’s a campaign donor of John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Instead, they subtly hint the panel is Republican vs. Nonpartisan.

Noting Isgur’s at The Dispatch – formed in opposition to Trump – implies she’s not a MAGA pundit. But no one thinks ABC would routinely turn to a pro-Trump contributor. The imbalance even continues in the ABC transcript: 

Karl asked Bharara simply if the special counsel made the "right call." Bharara then unloaded the Biden talking points, that some "vast majority" of legal experts thought the mental-fitness notes were "gratuitous." 

PREET BHARARA: What I don't think is correct, and I think the vast majority of legal experts agree with me on this, is the gratuitous, superfluous statements about his memory, not as it relates to the particular case or the facts relating to the handling of the classified documents, but as it relates to other things, including memory about the particular date and precise date of his son's death. That had no place in this document. It makes no sense for this to be in this document.

He complained, "It’s a weird landscape were in where Donald Trump gets credibly charged in four charging documents, four indictments around the country, and that's a political boon for him. And Joe Biden, on the other hand, this week gets exonerated in a document, and it's a political nightmare for him. Something is upside down."

Isgur then calmly explained to the apparent dummies that Hur cited Biden's mental capacity to suggest he wouldn't prosecute because a jury wouldn't convict someone of "willfully detaining" classified material if he wasn't, er, sharp: 

SARAH ISGUR: Look, as you said, they found evidence that he willfully retained national security information. And even probably beyond a reasonable doubt. But the justice manual says that that's not enough even if you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to believe, as the prosecutor, that you can get a conviction from a jury. So, why that information was included was because he's explaining to the attorney general in that report why he believes a jury would not convict Joe Biden even if they could probably prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

KARL: But how does him allegedly not knowing the year his son died, how is that relevant?

ISGUR: Because the mental state that's required -- it has to be willful, right? So, they found evidence that he knew there were classified documents in his basement for instance, but if he can tell a jury, like, yeah, I guess I knew that day but then I forgot the next day, then he didn't willfully retain the classified documents.

Karl then asked Isgur if she thinks the transcripts of Biden's interviews with Hur will be made public. She said chances are "pretty high." Karl asked Bharara if Kamala Harris should have criticized Hur for being political. Bharara, like a good Democrat, said "I'm not going to judge her." Their talking points align.