The exclusionary rule was an invention of the Supreme Court in 1914 (Weeks v. US). It maintained that evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution had to be excluded in FEDERAL court cases. Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 extended the rule to cases in the state courts meaning that the rule could be used in trials of the vast majority of violent crime in the US like murder, assault, rape, and all manner of serial mayhem. A potentially violent defendant could get off and be released into the public if evidence is tossed on a technicality.
Prior to the Weeks and Mapp decisions, no matter how evidence reached the court, it was admitted if it was ruled accurate and had a bearing on the case. Any police misconduct was expected to be handled administratively.
What’s that got to do with Hunter’s laptop? Well, take a look at the Democrats’ response to the growing controversy. Their only response thus far is to attack the origins of the emails on the laptop without an inkling of proof while entirely avoiding the validity of the contents. It’s what defense lawyers do: attack the police in their methods of gathering the evidence to have it excluded. Biden apologists are resorting to the same stratagem. They have yet to deny the contents of the emails while at the same time bellowing “Russia, Russia, Russia!” Biden sycophants are mimicking the defense bar in working to get the guilty to walk.
There’s a bit of the magicians’ illusion going on here, a sleight of hand. Democrats want you to be fixated on the Russians and away from anything that might have you think that Joe is your typical money-grubbing career politician.
Keep your eye on the contents and Joe’s denials, if indeed they are denials. Up to now, they haven’t really been. There’s zilch proof of Russian perfidy and each hour increasingly corroborates the emails. Watch the magician’s hands.
RogerG