Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University, has moved on from the Judge Amy confirmation hearings and is now addressing the Biden Crime Family story. He has a nice article at Fox today, in which he likens the Biden campaign non-responses to the dog that didn't bark in the famous Sherlock Holmes case, The Adventure of Silver Blaze. In The Adventure of Silver Blaze, a favored race horse disappears shortly before a big race. Holmes notes that the dog on guard failed to bark--a very curious fact, which Holmes recommends to the attention of the local police inspector
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
The metaphor works like this: If the Biden campaign is the dog, then it failed to bark at least three times, and each failure to bark corresponds to what should have been a predictable response to the Rudy Giuliani revelations stemming from Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop. Each non-bark corresponds to an expected register of bark that we would have expected to hear:
Bark 1: This was not Hunter Biden’s computer
...
Someone in the campaign must have called Hunter Biden and he had to have told them whether or not it was his laptop.
...
Bark 2: These were not Hunter Biden’s photos or emails
...
Note that if these are fabricated emails or pictures, this would be a serious federal crime and the basis for legal action.
Bark 3: This is defamation
... 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.
Truth is a defense to defamation, so the letter might start with the earlier bark and deny that this was Hunter Biden’s computer and these were Hunter Biden’s file.
...
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.
It's a very cogent article, as usual with Turley, and I urge you to read all of it:
Here's why the latest Hunter Biden scandal is so curious
Turley also does an interview that appears on the same page. In the interview he covers a number of topics, including the shambles the Dems made of their attempts at questioning Judge Amy. However, having observed what's pretty obvious--Twitter has been making a strong case against itself with regard to section 230 exemptions--he condenses his bark metaphor to this:
In terms of wiggle room, I was very surprised that the Biden campaign did not categorically deny every aspect of the story. Saying that 'this is not on an official schedule' really smacked many of us as a rather curious response. It doesn't really answer the underlying allegations.
This is the type of specific story that should be easy to refute--right? It should be easy to refute that this wasn't Hunter Biden's computer, he didn't turn it over, it has no connection to Hunter Biden, these emails were never received by Hunter Biden.
All of those are options, and instead we got this rather indirect, semi-denial. That's fueling the story.
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is promising a steady, day by day, stream of revelations from the laptop--culminating in a major information dump ten days before the election. Rudy is obviously trying to goad the Bidens into making statements--he openly said so to The Daily Caller: He controls the pace of the revelations and he wants to see how the Bidens respond to each revelation. And so far the best the Biden camp has been able to come up with--without actually denying anything--is to suggest that maybe this is somehow Russian disinformation. As Turley says, this non-denial response is merely "fueling the story," which happens to be exactly what Rudy wants. Which shows that Rudy--and Trump--is in the driver's seat.
However, Turley on his own blog site, today, says, incredibly: "I have expressed my skepticism over how this laptop was found and when it was disclosed publicly. This could very well be the work of foreign intelligence."
ReplyDeletehttps://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/17/biden-attacks-cbs-reporter-for-asking-about-the-hunter-biden-scandal/
Andy McCarthy couldn't have said it better...
Turley speaks as a defense lawyer, McC as a former prosecutor. Turley speaks carefully out of caution--but isn't afraid to totally expose the Dems when they deserve it. McC covers for friends and the institutions he came of age in.
DeleteAmen, Mark.
DeleteAt the time Jonathan Turley wrote that article, the news had not been reported that Hunter Biden’s attorney had - immediately after the Post’s report - telephoned and emailed the repairman, requesting the return of Hunter’s laptop/hard drive.
As for the lame Biden reply that there was nothing on his calendar about the meeting in question, it was later reported that there were two blocks of 3 hours each - one in the morning, the other in the afternoon - on his calendar for that day for which no appointments has been entered. The likelihood that he’d have entered such an appointment on an official calendar is - I’d say - none.
It’s fine that Turley and others have raised these issues about the laptop’s ownership, who left it at the shop (apparently Mac Isaac remembers the man who left it as being significantly inebriated)… As these are raised, they are shot down and that makes the news. This story has very long legs...
When Issac told the lawyer, Sorry, the FBI has had that since 12/2019, that must have been a significant 'Oh sh*t!' moment for the Biden lawyer.
DeleteBut Mark...weren't you just a little disappointed in Turley when he suggested that "This could very well be the work of foreign intelligence"?
DeleteI appreciate the difference between a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. My problem with Turley and AMcC is that they both often think a bit too highly of themselves and seem to be writing with an eye towards how their oh-so-smart DS colleagues will receive them.
Or perhaps I'm wrong.
Naturally, but realizing that he is very liberal, I'm usually pleased at anything positive to my own concerns he may say. IMO, he doesn't often fail to shed light on legal matters, although I occasionally have disagreed.
DeleteThe FBI has had the contents of the laptop since December, 2019, according to the Senate letter. A copy. Hunter's lawyer called the shop because the shop always had the laptop.
DeleteExcept it doesn't cover the wire transfers that where released before the laptop. Can't fake those.
DeleteRob S
Cassander, re Turley’s comment that it could be the work of foreign intelligence, at the time he wrote that he would not have had the information we’ve gotten today from the repairman via Larry Connolly (Gateway Pundit). “Could have been” is a maybe. He is not in the tank for Conservatives or Trump, so it is reasonable for him to remark on that possibility. But unlike the hardcore Left media and the likes of Adam Schiff, he didn’t make a statement that it was the work of foreign intelligence. Big diff...
Delete@ Cassander, @ Bebe
DeleteIn a senior moment I deleted Cassander's two comments, rather than enabling them. I believe there was another deleted as well.
When I mistakenly delete comments they're not recoverable, although I can past them in from email (where comments go before being enabled). So:
Cassander has left a new comment on your post "Jonathan Turley: The Biden Dog That Didn't Bark":
@Mark
I've admitted here several times that I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. (I live in a 'safe' Red state and thought I could safely do this with no risk of Mrs Clinton winning.)
I was offended by much of what I was hearing about Trump's character. It drowned out my ability to hear him clearly. I'm sure Johnson and Grassley were hearing even more of the same in Washington, D.C.
I am glad they have apparently seen the light. Better late than never. Cassander has left a new comment on your post "Jonathan Turley: The Biden Dog That Didn't Bark":
@Mark
I've admitted here several times that I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. (I live in a 'safe' Red state and thought I could safely do this with no risk of Mrs Clinton winning.)
I was offended by much of what I was hearing about Trump's character. It drowned out my ability to hear him clearly. I'm sure Johnson and Grassley were hearing even more of the same in Washington, D.C.
I am glad they have apparently seen the light. Better late than never.
Cassander has left a new comment on your post "Jonathan Turley: The Biden Dog That Didn't Bark":
@Bebe
With all due respect, Turley didn't say the laptop 'could' be the work of foreign intelligence. He said it 'could very well be' the work of foreign intelligence.
Upon reading the very first reports, replete with printouts of actual emails, I don't think a reasonable observer could reach this conclusion. I certainly didn't. I think Turley overstated the possibility and in this moment of crisis, I think it was a mistake.
I do agree that he certainly is not 'in the tank' for Trump.
Nearly three decades ago, Bill Clinton had a better rapid response to the "Bimbo eruptions" than Biden has to Hunter's.
ReplyDeleteI think the toast is burnt...
Yep. The Clintons barked furiously. All lies, but they barked.
DeleteGreat writeups. Now we see why Trump so aggressively and single-mindedly (and many, not me, though obnoxiously) hammered Biden on Hunter the entire first debate. He knew this was coming.
ReplyDelete-Andrew E.
Good point.
DeleteThank you, Andrew E., for setting yourself apart from the growing numbers of Anonymous comments. We have no idea whether there are a number of different posters or just the same Anonymous talking to himself. Your ID within your comment is a big help. :-)
DeleteI like the idea of posting with a username. No URL is required.
Exclusive: Larry C. Johnson Interviews John Paul Mac Issac — The American Patriot Who Was Hired to Fix Hunter Biden’s Computers
ReplyDeleteThe article begins:
John Paul Mac Issac is not an agent or spy for anyone. He is his own man. How do I know? I have known his dad for more than 20 years. I’ve known John Paul’s dad as Mac. Mac is a decorated Vietnam Veteran, who flew gunships in Vietnam. And he continued his military service with an impeccable record until he retired as an Air Force Colonel. The crews of those gunships have an annual reunion and Mac usually takes John Paul along, who volunteers his computer and video skills to record and compile the stories of those brave men who served their country in a difficult war.
This story is very simple–Hunter Biden dropped off three computers with liquid damage at a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware on April 12, 2019. The owner, John Paul Mac Issac, examined the three and determined that one was beyond recovery, one was okay and the data on the hard drive of the third could be recovered. Hunter signed the service ticket and John Paul Mac Issac repaired the hard drive and downloaded the data. During this process he saw some disturbing images and a number of emails that concerned Ukraine, Burisma, China and other issues. With the work completed, Mr. Mac Issac prepared an invoice, sent it to Hunter Biden and notified him that the computer was ready to be retrieved. Hunter did not respond. In the ensuing four months (May, June, July and August), Mr. Mac Issac made repeated efforts to contact Hunter Biden. Biden never answered and never responded. More importantly, Biden stiffed John Paul Mac Issac–i.e., he did not pay the bill.
When the manufactured Ukraine crisis surfaced in August 2019, John Paul realized he was sitting on radioactive material that might be relevant to the investigation. After conferring with his father, Mac and John Paul decided that Mac would take the information to the FBI office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mac walked into the Albuquerque FBI office and spoke with an agent who refused to give his name. Mac explained the material he had, but was rebuffed by the FBI. He was told basically, get lost. This was mid-September 2019.
Two months passed and then, out of the blue, the FBI contacted John Paul Mac Issac. Two FBI agents from the Wilmington FBI office–Joshua Williams and Mike Dzielak–came to John Paul’s business. He offered immediately to give them the hard drive, no strings attached. Agents Williams and Dzielak declined to take the device.
Two weeks later, the intrepid agents called and asked to come and image the hard drive. John Paul agreed but, instead of taking the hard drive or imaging the drive, they gave him a subpoena. It was part of a grand jury proceeding but neither agent said anything about the purpose of the grand jury. John Paul complied with the subpoena and turned over the hard drive and the computer.
In the ensuing months, starting with the impeachment trial of President Trump, he heard nothing from the FBI and knew that none of the evidence from the hard drive had been shared with President Trump’s defense team.
... the article continues ....
I'll have to read that. A couple of things jump out.
DeleteObviously the FBI in AQ didn't just do nothing. They took down the information--including where to find Issac--and got it to the relevant Field Office.
It's not surprising that the agents in Delaware declined to take the HD 'no strings attached,' since they would want to consult with an AUSA regarding the legalities--did Issac have legal authority to turn it over, etc.
Their consultation with the AUSA led to a major step--a full investigation was opened and a grand jury number assigned. That means that the AUSA agreed they had probable cause to believe a crime was committed and when they then came back with a subpoena, that means they believed the HD was evidence of that crime.
But that means they were legally bound to grand jury secrecy. The FBI couldn't legally reveal the information even to the president. If the local USA attorney had made the information known to Barr, could that have been done?
Probably so--there's almost always a way to do something that's inherently reasonable. However, the other side of the coin was that Trump wasn't going to be removed, and it's possible that the investigation was gathering large amounts of actionable information beyond what we know. I don't know that, of course.
"...there's almost always a way to do something that's inherently reasonable."
DeleteOne thing that would be reasonable would be a statement from the FBI, either in the affirmative or negative, as to evidence of foreign fabrication or manipulation of the data they have recovered--not supposition, but the forensic facts. While it might be argued that this is interfering in political discourse, i.e. campaign's dueling lies, this is a nat'l security issue that bears directly on the electorates decision making ability. To withhold such generalized information, regardless which narrative it favored, would truly be an egregious interference in the electoral process.
Tom S.
Mark, isn’t it likely in that 9 mo. period of time someone has been called before the GJ if this is being dealt with properly? This is not sprawling investigation with numerous tentacles. I know COVID, but sitting on it through impeachment and the election does not inspire confidence. The FBI has long since lost the benefit of the doubt and likely using the GJ
Deletesecrecy you describe to sit on this. Anybody believe it would be publicly
disclosed right after the election? All hopefully coming out anyway now.
Is Larry C. Johnson credible?
DeleteSerious question...
Not necessarily. As in the case of Daniel Jones, who has been subpoenaed--but apparently quite recently--there are two factors:
Delete1. Both investigations would probably involve acquiring massive amounts of communication and financial data that would be time consuming to sift and to fit together. That would be done via grand jury subpoenas, since this would be either/or both a political corruption or child porn investigation. Both, I presume.
2. As with Jones, until all this was done they would not want to call anyone to testify because witnesses are free to disclose that they have appeared before a grand jury and to disclose what they said.
@ Cassander
DeleteLegit question. IMO, he's a mixed bag. He's usually factually correct. OTOH, my view is that he sometimes reacts somewhat emotionally in analyzing facts, depending on his views.
"If the local USA attorney had made the information known to Barr, could *that* have been done?"
DeleteDoes "that" refer, to Barr telling DJT, or what?
Small detail, although everyone had been writing about Mac Isaac, the Gateway Pundit (not terribly well edited and proofread) came out with Mac Issac. And many began following suit. I noticed just now that the GP has corrected itself to Mac Isaac so it’s ok if we start using that correct spelling again… The least we can do is spell the man’s name correctly...
DeleteThe other clue by the "dog" is when the Hunter's attorney calls the Computer repair shop recently to demand Biden's laptops/HD data back. It's an admission the devices, and the data contained thereon, were Hunter's, and NOT something fabricated and dropped off by evil Russian intel agents in poorly color-coordinated ill-fitting suits, pretending they are Hunter's laptops.
ReplyDeleteAnd lest there be a “he said-he said” re the Biden attorney’s calling the repairman, the intrepid attorney also requested the return of the laptop by email. Kind of locked himself and Hunter in...
Delete... unless, of course, the attorney was yet another "evil Russian intel agent in a poorly color-coordinated ill-fitting suit,"* pretending to be Hunter's attorney.
DeleteBut then why hasn't Hunter denied it was his attorney?
Hmmm?
* if I could, I'd post an image of the retched "Oleg Kirov" from "Smiley's People" -- in the original TV series, he's wearing a double-breasted grey suit three sizes too small for his middle aged body, with BROWN shoes!
"'We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin."
Delete—Adam Schiff
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/124/028/5c2.jpg
"More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
Delete—Fusion Natasha Bertrand, POLITICO
"Almost all of these people were working in the intelligence community when they were using the Russian sourced Steele Dossier to spy on the Trump campaign"
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1318387903605755904
"One senior federal law enforcement official says ... The FBI and DOJ concur with DNI Ratcliffe's assessment that Hunter Biden's laptop and emails in question were not part of a Russian disinformation campaign."
https://twitter.com/JakeBGibson/status/1318675041924665344
"Senior intel official: 'Ratcliffe was right. Schiff was wrong. In other words, it was a typical Tuesday.'"
https://twitter.com/kristina_wong/status/1318684021841403909
"The most active agents of disinformation and propaganda in US politics are current and former members of the intel community. They were trained to lie and deceive but were supposed to direct it at foreign populations. Their main target is now domestic, & key ally the US media."
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1318541501434122240
183X
The Gambinos were pikers compared to the Bidenos.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of dogs not barking. Curious silence from DoJ/FBI on any part at issue. The answers as to veracity and provenance should already be readily available. They supposedly have had it for close to eleven months.
ReplyDeleteTom S.
What's this talk about the FBI investigating this matter as a Russian disinformation op? A smokescreen?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/10/17/the-fbi-is-investigating-hunter-biden-but-its-for-a-ridiculous-reason/
DeleteFBI became a paranoid political gestapo long ago. This is the inevitable result.
DeleteSo this Isaac interview supersedes a post I made earlier that contained a lot of speculation, & I assume that's why Mark didn't let it publish.
ReplyDeleteBut the question remains, how could the FBI have had this laptop since December and have kept it secret from the Bidens & the DNC? Especially considering Dana Boente wasn't fired until June of this year...
I'm sorry, I assure you I didn't disallow any comments by anyone today.
DeleteAs for your question, it's a good one but it also illustrates that the existence of such an investigation would be a closely guarded secret within the FBI, on a very stricty need to know basis. I wouldn't be surprised if Boente knew of it, but he would fear being identified as a leaker of closely held information.
Is my "Q-36 Immodium Modulator" comment still censored?
DeleteNo. It was a dumb post once the new info came out. Disallow extraneous questions away.
ReplyDeleteMy thinking was this story might actually expose a huge story having nothing to do with the Bidens at all. The fact they were caught completely unawares. Like Allies landing in Normandy instead of Calais level of surprise. Contrast that with 2015-16 when Sussman & Elias could go to the 7th floor of the Hoover building anytime they want & say use this dossier to get warrants & read our oppo researcher into your counterintel investigation.
I simply can't imagine Wray or Boente, if they were aware of this harddrive, not at the very least making some phone calls to the DNC, "hey you need to figure out what Hunter might have had on this & develop a plan for the inevitable October surprise." That they haven't tells me they didn't know.
Which suggests--maybe this is just wishcasting--AG Barr has set up some sort of firewall between the 7th floor & ongoing Russia & Ukraine investigations?
Any time you obtain large volumes of data like this you can't avoid reviewing it all and there's no way of knowing what you may find and where it may lead. For those outside it will always be frustrating, if they know there's an investigation going on, since grand jury secrecy takes precedence.
DeleteGrand Jury secrecy applies even to the FBI Director & his General Counsel?
DeleteOf course. Contrary to appearances at times, they're not above the law.
DeleteI get that, but aren't they ultimately responsible for all FBI investigations that prepare evidence that get submitted to grand juries?
DeleteYou're saying the agent who submitted the evidence to the GJ isn't allowed to tell his FBI chain of command what he was doing?
I'm saying they have to comply with FRCR Rule 6(e)(2)(3). Cf. especially Rule 6(e)(2)(B) and Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
Deletehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6#
An investigation like this one would be specially restricted, just like Crossfire Hurricane would have been. It would have a codename and access to the case files on the file system would be strictly limited and--at least in theory--monitored. Even disclosing the existence of the investigation to unauthorized persons--i.e., the press, the Bidens and their friends, the DNC--would be an extremely serious offense.
Of course some sensitive investigations become public knowledge for various reasons--for example, they may be referred to the FBI publicly by Congress, etc.
Who's saying that the Bidens and DNC didn't know the FBI was in possession of the LT/HD? Perhaps they were confident that it would go on a shelf in the evidence locker right next to the Rosenberg typewriter. How many people knew Isaac had made a copy until Giuliani released the first info to the Post, half a dozen, maybe.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that in the future subpoenas for such mat'l will automatically include the phrase "and all copies, facsimiles, ect. and all records pertaining thereto".
Everyone knew this was coming including Nancy P. check out on twitter Himalaya Global @HimalayaGlobal @ding_gang broke this story back on Sept. 28 , this is also the VERY FIRST person to break the COVID 19 story.
DeleteWho else now thinks that Barr knew this was coming and decided not to get in the way by issuing indictments pre-election and getting in the way of this MOAB?
ReplyDeleteCount me in on that. Or at least it could have been a consideration. You have to keep in mind that Ukraine was a critical center for Soros' political activities as well, that Schiff and Pelosi--and probably others--were getting money from Ukraine. Ukraine - US political corruption was not just about Hunter Biden and/or Joe Biden. Huge amounts of money, multiple pols involved. And we don't know what all may have been found on that laptop. It's sprawling.
DeleteAnd we haven't even hardly begun to talk about China. China is the issue, IMO, that gets Trump big time traction in the swing states of the Midwest that lost a lot of jobs.
Mark, perhaps evidence of this (DOJ) sometime ago were the FBI raids of Ukraine connections in Cleveland and Miami a couple months ago.
DeleteGood point. Again, the problem for us is that we have no real way of knowing. But searches and seizures of that magnitude don't just happen. There's a lot of work that goes into them and a lot of work that comes later.
DeleteGood point. As far as I can tell, William Barr's family is long time friends with the Bush family; he supported Jeb in 2016 & has never seemed to particularly care for Donald J. Trump the man.
DeleteWhile Barr's staunch conservatism, professionalism, & intense distaste for the attacks on the Executive Office of the President mounted on Trump by Comey-Mueller & their goons would have girded Barr's loins to rejoin government, he had no connection with the administration that might invite him to the fight that any commentator I am aware of (though Byron York speculates on Jay Sekulow).
The exception of course is Rudy Guiliani, USA for SDNY while Barr was head of OLC, then DAG, then AG. Is it a coincidence that Barr's open letter to Rosenstein came just a few short month's after Rudy joined Trump's Mueller defense team?
The idea they're not working this together is laughable. And I think we can see the broad outlines of the arrangement--Rudy, you handle the politics, I'll handle the law. You're a good enough prosecutor to know what you can get away with using without leaving it worthless to me in a jury trial.
Agreed. But your point means that the info is so complicated to absorb by the casual observer that their eyes glaze over. This current info directly implicates Biden in a way that he cannot reasonably deflect. Trump obviously knew it was coming, criticizes Barr to satisfy his base and now has an open field to concentrate his justified attack with nothing else in the way. Pretty slick for an “amateur” politician! Do you think they have put Nancy in restraints yet?
ReplyDeleteSome else has appeared, Looks like 3 hard disks have been sent to DOJ and Nancy P. from some guy in China trying to save his ass from CCP. on Twitter @HimalayaGlobal Sept 28 tweet with video. check it out tell me what you think.
ReplyDeleteJust an opinion, but it would seem to me that if I was looking for help vs the CCP sending a HD to San Fran Nan would be like Dorothy mailing the key to the bus station locker where she stashed the ruby slippers to the Wicked Witch (no offense intended to Wicked Witches).
DeleteTom S.
Got to believe that HRC is whistling past the graveyard on this one hoping that all the attention is off of her. Whereas the Biden clan might be wheelbarrows full of money league, I can imagine she’s in the 18 wheel dump truck full of money category.
ReplyDeleteMikeyinfl
Sen. Johnson has a dark assessment:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/senate-homeland-committee-demands-answers-fbi-over-hunter-biden-laptop
Johnson and Grassley are among the senators talking a good line now, but where have they been for the last four years. Grassley was a prominent one who blocked Trump from firing Sessions. Johnson appeared with Bartiromo a few weeks ago and she tore him a new one, unmercifully, demanding to know where he's been.
Delete