How to Fix a Drug Scandal is a fairly good work of art, though if interpreted as a documentary it suffers from rather glaring bias. It documents extreme misconduct of Massachuesets prosecutors, who, on the discovery that a woman in the drug lab had been using the drugs she was supposed to be testing, covered up evidence of the scope of her behavior so as not to jeopardize convictions. It then features interviews with those convicted using the drug lab tests of this lab worker and their lawyers. You expect the lawyers to be typically lawyerly in the defense of their clients, but the producers of the documentary never give them the chance, never ask the hard-hitting questions: “your client was accused of selling X grams of cocaine to an undercover cop. The ‘cocaine’ was then tested in this unreliable manner, we all agree on that. If it wasn’t cocaine, what was it? Was it just white powder that was being fraudulently sold as cocaine?” Maybe they should make that have the same penalty.
It reminds me of this whole Hunter Biden brouhaha. The Democrats rarely bother arguing Hunter Biden got his job with Burisma on merit. They say, instead, that if he wants to make money off his last name, there’s nothing illegal about that. But what, exactly, is being sold? While you can believe that an American company would hire the President’s son just to signal prestige to other firms, it’s harder to believe a Ukrainian company would shell out for that. They wanted a real “return on investment,” but, the Democrats say implicitly, “who knows if they got anything? Maybe Hunter was just selling the wink-wink nudge nudge idea that he was gonna provide some kind of influence. And what’s wrong with that?”
I don’t think, though, that this will do much harm to Biden. If anything, the voters will empathize with him, since many of them have to deal with failure relatives who are a constant source of headache and embarrestment.