Fox News, Jonathan Turley contributor:
The problem is the absence of “barks” from the Biden camp.
The convergence of law and politics is a common occurrence in Washington. While law is used to ascertain truth, politics is often used to obscure it. That is why the truth is rarely evident in looking at a scandal straight on. Rather it requires peripheral vision or analysis – often what is not evident is what is most enlightening.
This most famous example of such reasoning was found in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story “Silver Blaze,” on Sherlock Holmes’s investigation of the disappearance of a racehorse. The local inspector asked if there was “any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes responds, “To the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime.”
When the inspector objects, “The dog did nothing in the night-time,” Holmes replies, “That was the curious incident.”
There is always something a tad curious of Washington legal scandals in what has not occurred. That is why the latest Hunter Biden scandal is so curious.
When the story broke in the New York Post, the Biden campaign was faced with thousands of emails that purportedly showed clear support for allegations that Hunter Biden was given millions as part of an influence-peddling scheme related to his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden.
The problem was the absence of “barks” from the Biden camp. The computer files revealed a host of embarrassing pictures of Hunter Biden using drugs or exposed in other embarrassing ways. The emails contain dates and addresses that match up with confirmed records.
If they are fabricated, there were three barks that we would have expected within hours of the release.
Bark 1: This was not Hunter Biden’s computer – The most obvious response would be that this is not the computer of Hunter Biden. After all, the computer store owner John Paul Mac Isaac who is legally blind said that he could not recognize the person who dropped off the laptop … The response on ownership has been crickets for days.
Bark 2: These were not Hunter Biden’s photos or emails – Even if the campaign cannot deny that the computer was Hunter Biden’s, it could deny that these incriminating pictures and emails were his. Again, crickets.
Bark 3: This is defamation – Perhaps this bark is the most telling. If these emails or pictures are fabricated, it is a clear case of defamation and other tort actions. It would seem that one of the hundreds of lawyers currently lined up by the Biden campaign would fire off an “intent to sue” letter. But no.
Instead of these obvious barks, the public heard something closer to a whimper: that the campaign could not find any notation on Vice President Biden’s official schedule that he met with a Ukrainian figure connected to the payments to his son Hunter Biden.