The Biden Scandal In Three Barks: Why The Most Telling Elements May Be What We Were Not Told

Below is my earlier column on the Biden controversy and the notable omission of three responses that one would have expected in the days following the disclosure in the New York Post. As I have said repeatedly, the timing and manner in which this information came to the public is highly suspicious and could well be the work of foreign intelligence. Even Rudy Giuliani now puts the chances that he worked with a Russian agent at “50-50.”  However, that would still leave the question of whether the underlying emails are authentic. The Clinton emails were hacked by the Russians but they were also true.  These emails show clear influence peddling, if they are authentic. Instead of addressing the specific emails or even denying their authenticity, figures like Rep. Adam Schiff simply dismissed the story as a Russian hit job.  For his part, Joe Biden dismissed reporters asking him about the emails as participating in a smear campaign.  There are legitimate questions about how this information was produced (questions that the FBI is reportedly investigating). However, there are also legitimate questions about the content of some of these emails and what they say about an alleged influence peddling scheme related to a presidential candidate.

Here is the column:

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.

There was ample reason to be skeptical about the sketchy account of a computer being left by Hunter Biden at a computer store with a man who cannot see beyond a couple of feet.  And then there is the timing of disclosure just weeks before an election.

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.

However, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has now stated, as a fact, that “the laptop was left by Hunter Biden, in an inebriated, heavily inebriated state with the merchant.”  That does not purport with what Isaac said.

However, there remains the question of a laptop with a “Beau Biden Foundation” sticker on it with highly incriminating files.

Someone in the campaign must have called Hunter Biden and he had to have told them whether or not it was his 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.

Note that if these are fabricated emails or pictures, this would be a serious federal crime and the basis for legal action.

The Biden camp has no shortage of lawyers. Indeed, they have been signing up lawyers in droves in preparation for election challenges.

Yet, there is not a single allegation of fraud or fabrication after days of a brewing scandal.

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.

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.

One big difference between the legal and political worlds is that in the latter there is no protection for the right to remain silent. In politics, scandals can be managed but not silently.

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 would be a curious sight in itself for Biden’s official schedule to include “meeting with Ukrainian connected to Hunter.” Many meetings are not part of an official schedule that staffers know is subject to official records laws for preservation and review.

That is what is so curious about the Hunter Biden story and, to move from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to Lewis Carroll, it is becoming “curiouser and curiouser.”

248 thoughts on “The Biden Scandal In Three Barks: Why The Most Telling Elements May Be What We Were Not Told”

  1. There is 0 (zero) evidence that russia hacked dnc emails, yet you persist in maintaining this myth. Why?

      1. I’m glad he said what he did. Bobulinski would not have gotten involved but for the Schiff smear which he blamed on Russian disinformation. Bobulinski warned the Biden Cartel that unless that claim was withdrawn he would talk to the press and prove the Russia connection didn’t exist. One of the major players told him not to do that or Bobulinski’s release would sink everyone.

        The MSM held back what he said which is verifiable on emails that have been verified, news reports, Audio statements etc. I don’t think Joe Biden will survive the truth even if elected. However, a lot of big money and billionaires want control so they want Biden left alone.

        Watch Tucker tonight. I think the show might show more proof.

        1. The problem is that if elected this will all get burried.

          You can count on the fact that Republicans will be investigated no matter who is in power.

          You can count on the fact that investigations of democrats will only occur if republicans are in power and even then by standards that require a substantial higher burden of proof than ordinary people are afforded.

          Yes, claiming the biden laptop is Russian disinformation is lubcrously stupid.

          But FBI/DOJ bought and sold the collusion delusion.

          I did read an interesting interview by a VIPS founder and former ranking NSA staffer regardling Schiff and some other things.

          You can GUARANTEE that if Schiff speaks about something national security related – he is lying.
          Because if he were telling the truth he would be committing a crime.

          He noted that you can similarly tell that the DNC emails were NOT hacked by Russia – because if they were the NSA would have the evidence to prove it. The absence of anything from the NSA means that the DNC emails were leaked not hacked.

          This guy thinks that all the dirt on Biden is near certain true. Yet he is still voting for Biden – so this is not a republican source.

          1. “The problem is that if elected this will all get burried.”

            That is right and the intelligence community will be aimed against the people of the US.

            1. Rudy, the former mafia prosecutor is not messing around. Listen to his case against Joe Biden, especially his wrap-up starting at 28:00….he’s on fire.

              1. Rudy is Senile! He has proved that when he used any thing from the Ukraine as he went to a known unreliable source to get information to smear Joe Biden. The source was a known criminal in the Ukraine!!!!!!

                1. You are aware that many of the things from the Ukraine were actually from FOAI requests from the US state department or other government agencies – or bank records from Romania, and other countries ?

                  That much of the information from the Ukraine ties to the US State Department records and to the files and messages from Biden’s laptop ?

                  It there was 1/10th this much uncovered by Mueller Trump would be wearing an orange jumpsuit.

  2. I also note that one of the email threads involves a Boise Schiller partner and she too has been conspicuously silent about the emails.


    heard you on the radio– fantastic!

    Thank you for helping the voters parse the truth!

  4. Update from one of the reporters following the Biden campaign in North Carolina yesterday:

    “In the end, Biden’s answer on his milkshake choice was the only question he responded to over the course of his day trip to North Carolina, despite multiple attempts by the reporters traveling with him.”

    The only question Joe Biden has answered is what flavor ice cream he and his granddaughter got at the ice cream parlor they stopped at.

    Joe Biden KNOWS he can continue to avoid answering a single question about any of this because the press is actually working to protect Biden and hoping to get him elected and Biden will continue to avoid answering because he will not be pressed or pressured to explain or answer for anything.

    Stephanopolous did not ask at Joe Biden’s townhall last week – an embarrassing example of journalist malpractice if there ever was one.

    The press has disqualified themselves. Most are no longer reliable sources, nor are they credible sources.

    1. Just how gullible does one have to be to fall for this crap, anyway? This is the “October surprise”–the big pivot to divert attention away from Trump, his lying, his blustering, and his irresponsible conduct that is helping to spread the virus. This is the most-unqualified and dishonest administration in US history, and Giuliani has no credibility. Ditto for the New York Post. They began attacking Biden by making up stuff about Hunter. When that didn’t go anywhere, they tried, unsuccessfully, to portray Biden as senile and incompetent. Not only did that not work, it offended seniors, whom Republicans would like to count as a main component of their supporters. Now, they’re going back to Hunter, with some conveniently-found e-mails. Once again, Turley and his blog are being use to try to create an aura of credibility around this misfit and his incompetence. It’s becoming sadder and sadder.

      1. Just how gullible does one have to be to fall for this crap, anyway?

        Wow! You’re about 4 years late to the party.

      2. “Just how gullible does one have to be to fall for this crap, anyway? This is the “October surprise”–the big pivot to divert attention away from Trump,”
        The FBI had this in December 2019. It was in their power to bring this out then. They buried it.

        Is it likely this is an “October Surprise” – Sure.

        What matters is whether it is true.

        The Russian disinformation claim has been debunked.

        The Biden camp is slowly admitting this is real.

        We are getting further confirmation that the Obama Whitehouse was involved.

        The Obama administration was the most corrupt US presidency ever.

        That it is collapsing at your feet should not be surprising.

        “his lying,”

        What lie ? That Biden should be investigated ? That the Collusion Delusion was a witch hunt ? That The Trump campaign was spied on ?

        “his blustering”

        So don;t vote for him.

        “and his irresponsible conduct that is helping to spread the virus.”

        How is his conduct different from that of other world leaders ?
        How are his results different ?

        Trump has absolutely screwed up.
        He never should have agreed to a lockdown.
        He never should have agreed to ANY stimulus – it is just wasteful spending.
        Stimulus must increase production to work. It can’t in a lockdown.

        “This is the most-unqualified and dishonest administration in US history,”
        That would be Obama. Who sicced the IRS on political enemies ? Who sold guns to drug dealers ? Who lied about a terrorist attack that resulted in the Death of a US ambassador ? Who sold 20% of US uranium rights to Russia ? Who told people they could keep their doctors ? Who told people that ObamaCare would save lives ? Who spied on journalists ? Senators ? Opposing political Campaigns ? Who sold US power for personal gain ?

        “and Giuliani has no credibility.”
        Right you are talking about one of the most respected US Attorneries who took on and took down the Mob. You are talking about the NYC Mayor who responded courageously to 9/11. You are talking about the Mayor who brought violent crime in NYC down 600%.

        “Ditto for the New York Post.”
        Because you do not like truth ?

        “They began attacking Biden by making up stuff about Hunter.”
        Can you cite something that was false ? Is he not a drug addict ? A dead beat Dad ? Involved in prostitution and underage girls and human trafficing ? Isn’t he getting paid exhorbitantly for jobs where his only qualification is Joe Biden’s son ?

        “When that didn’t go anywhere, they tried, unsuccessfully, to portray Biden as senile and incompetent. Not only did that not work, it offended seniors, whom Republicans would like to count as a main component of their supporters.”

        Biden with lots of protection for the media managed to not look too bumbling in the first debate.
        That does not establish competence. I am very sorry if Biden’s competence is declining – I honestly hope it is not.
        But if it is he should spend his last time with his family, not as a puppet president.

        And frankly he is showing LOTS of signs of very serious mental decline. My father had dimensia for 3 years before he died and Biden’s behavior is earily similar.

        “Now, they’re going back to Hunter,”
        This is not about Hunter – it is about Joe.

        “with some conveniently-found e-mails.”
        So Russian’s blackmailed Hunter into abandoning his laptop ?

        There has been more than enough to expose the Biden family corruption before – you called it a “debunked right wing conspiracy theory” – you know like “the collusion delusion”.

        This is happening now – because you failed to grasp the self evident issues in Ukraine with the Biden’s at every prior oportunity you were given.

        “Once again, Turley and his blog are being use to try to create an aura of credibility around this misfit and his incompetence. It’s becoming sadder and sadder.”

        The facts speak for themselves.

        It was hard for many republicans to grasp that Nixon was corrupt.

        Now it is your turn. Obama was the most corrupt president ever, and Biden was wallowing in the graft.

        You have been lied to. Get over yourself – won’t be the first time.

      3. How right you are Natacha. Rudy has nothing and neither does that so called female atty.

  5. “Even Rudy Giuliani now puts the chances that he worked with a Russian agent at “50-50.”
    Guiliani NEVER suggested the source of Hunter’s laptop (the computer repair guy) was a Russian agent. He was talking about his interview in Ukraine. Nota Bene

    1. Given that Guiliani conducted myriads of interviews in Eastern Europe I wouls say it is near certain that he talked with atleast one russian agent.

      Just as the same is True of Mueller.

      I would be shocked if you could investigate anything in eastern europe without encountering russian agents.

      This story is evolving – NY Post has learned from Project Veritas and from Brietbart.

      Do not release the whole story at once – let your targets respond without knowing all of what you have.
      LEt them say something stupid and then be exposed as liars because you have a pair of aces as hold cards.

      We are now seeing confirmation that the Obama white house working with Blue Star arranged a meeting between Burisma and VP Biden

      We are also seeing that Hunter Biden signed the quote for laptop repairs.

      The NY Posts info is NOT “transparent propoganda” or “Russian disinformation”.

      Even the Biden campaign is now admitting the “meeting” may have taken place.

  6. Professor Turley has brilliantly illustrated what I have written earlier on these pages of amusement. Why haven’t Joe or Hunter plainly said that the emails are not Hunters emails. When Joe has been asked about it he gets upset. He even gets angry with members of the press who are supporting him. I must admit that the proffesors’s article has encouraged me to revisit the joy of my youth that I found when reading, “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.”

      1. Why dignify Trump’s “October surprise” by doing anything other than ignoring it? Mespo: here’s how the “October surprise works”: get everyone talking about the phony “scandal”, so that they’re not talking about Trump’s latest lies, gaffes, the surging unemployment rate, the surging coronavirus positive case numbers and deaths. It’s a classic Kellyanne pivot. It won’t work, except on Fox news.

        1. Let’s talk about CNNs Jeffrey Toobin exposing his d*ck on a Zoom meeting that just got him suspended. What a doofus loser Toobin is….

              1. And its only mid-October 2020.


                Baby drama! CNN star Jeffrey Toobin offered Casey Greenfield money for abortion: sources

                May 08, 2010

                “Jeff and Casey saw each other off and on over the years,” says one source. “She was married to someone else for two years. After her divorce, she started seeing Jeff again. He said he was going to leave his wife for her. But, by then, Casey had begun to distrust him. She suspected he had several other mistresses.”

                In 2008, when Greenfield became pregnant, and when she told Toobin the news, he offered her “money if she’d have an abortion,” says a source. He also allegedly offered to pay for her to have another child later via a sperm donor.

                “When Casey wouldn’t have an abortion, Jeff told her she was going to regret it, that she shouldn’t expect any help from him,” claims another source.

        2. All that is necescary for corruption to thrive is to ignore it.

          You are free to do so. The rest of us get to make our own choices.

        3. Like it or not there are legitimate questions.

          It is already evident Joe Biden lied about knowing what Hunter was up to.
          That is not a crime.

          But ethics and the law REQUIRED that he remove himself from anything that might tough on his son.
          He did not.

          All the above is FACT at this time.
          All the above also makes the Trump impeachment a fraud.

          Given that the FBI knew of this in December 2019 and did not provide it to the house impeachment committee – that means the FBI is still politically corrupt.

          All this is facts.

          What is not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt but likely true is that not only did Joe Biden actively manipulate US Foriegn policy to benefit his son, but that he likely personally profited.

          Both of those are serious crimes. Bother should result in impeachment and removal immediately on taking office.

          You were told that nominating Joe was a mistake. But you went ahead anyway.

          You were told Joe’s dealings in Ukraine were scurilous – but you put your head in the sand.

  7. It look like it’s between the Chair of the Senate HSGAC and the Director of the FBI at this point:


    “The Post stated that the documents were found on a computer deposited at a Delaware repair shop. The store owner turned over the computer to the FBI in December 2019, but made a copy of the documents on a separate hard drive.”

    Johnson (R-WI), the Chair of Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, “stated in his letter that a whistleblower had contacted the committee on September 24, 2020, claiming that he had turned over a computer belonging to Hunter Biden to the FBI. Johnson wrote that staffers immediately asked the FBI to confirm some details in the whistleblower’s claim, however the FBI responded that they could not confirm or deny the information.”


    “Senator Ron Johnson demands FBI Director Christopher Wray confirm details surrounding Hunter Biden laptop scandal because Joe’s response to the story was ‘pretty odd’.”

    1. They have it. They sat on it. The institutional culture of the agency has been deficient for some time. Christopher Wray’s manifest commitment to repairing it is nil.

      1. What’s your evidence that “They sat on it” rather than “They investigated and found nothing illegal from the Bidens”?

        1. Now it’s between House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff and DNI Ratcliffe:

          None of this answers the questions “why did they sit on it” and “what are they willing to say they found.”

          Ratcliffe has said the information on the laptop was not Russian disinformation. But the information on the laptop may not be the same as the information released by the NYP. Has Ratcliffe confirmed that the information released by the NYP (from “the backed up hard drive”) matches the data on the laptop at the FBI?

          1. Are you claiming that the NYP colluded with Russia to forge 10’s of thousands of emails ?

        2. The information we have is absolutely exculpatory with respect to the Trump impeachment – the FBI was obligated to provide it to the House.

          Whether it demonstrates Biden’s guilt or innocence.

          When you claim they investigated it and found nothing – all you are doing is PROVING Trump’s request to the Ukraine was legitimate.

          If as you say the FBI did not sit on it – then they investigated.

          If they Investigated – they they quietly did themselves what Trump asked Ukraine to do.

          So you are admitting that an investigation was warranted.

          And if so Trump’s actions were legitimate.

  8. Fundimental to this story is that it is absolutely BINARY.

    Turley dances arround the fact that there MUST be a criminal in this story.

    Either the documents are authentic and the Bidens are demonstrably deeply corrupt,
    Or there is a massive crimninal international fraud and forgery campaign.

    There is no middle ground.

  9. I did read it more than once.

    MR. HENRY: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that the data was exfiltrated, we do not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we do have indicators that it was exfiltrated.

    Simply, Mr. Henry is being told by his attorney that their is no evidence that the e-mails were copied or downloaded, only “indicators”, which in computer speak means, there are suggestions that someone or something viewed the e-mails.

    No evidence of copying or down loading.

    Mr. Henry is a political operative with economic-financial self interest.

    Mr. Bill Binney’s work and evidence has not been disputed, discredited or disproved.

    Science, not politics or economic-financial self interest shows evidence.

    Incidentally, none of this is in any doubt or question by people with a modicum of technical-computer knowledge or understanding.

    Nor is it news.

    dennis hanna

    1. When you say that you read it more than once, are you talking about the ENTIRE 80 page transcript? If you’re not talking about the ENTIIRE 80 page transcript, what part are you talking about? what part did you read more than once?

      I’m asking because your quote isn’t the most relevant quote, and maybe you just didn’t read the rest.

      1. Mr. Henry was asked repeatedly if information was taken (exfiltrated) from the DNC servers. He said that he found no concrete (hard) evidence that the servers had been hacked. He said he thought he saw evidence that the Russians had tried to hack the servers.
        I have always thought that hacking ment going into a computer and taking (exfiltrating) information from that computer.
        Dictionary: “hacking, the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer. The key word here is “gaining”. Without the word gaining (exfiltrared) there is no hack. Reference page 33 of the report. Don’t worry, we can just go to the ministry of Newsspeak and they will give us a new way to say things that will support our position.

        1. If you think that hacking only means “going into a computer and taking (exfiltrating) information from that computer,” then you think wrong. Hacking to monitor in real time also occurs, and as Henry pointed out, that doesn’t require exfiltration, as they can simply capture information with screenshots. You don’t even understand the definition you cite. “the gaining of unauthorized access to data” includes real time monitoring.

          1. Hacking is a term whose meaning varies based on who you talk to.

            As an actual hacker from the 70’s I have a problem with those who claim hacking involves anything illegal.

            Hacking is a creative solution to a computer problem – I beleive that the term hacking also was used similarly outside of computers,
            and referes more generally to a functional rube goldberg type problem solution.

            More recently hacking has tended to mean accessing a computer over a network that you do not have authorized access to.

            It does not require exfiltration of anything.

            But it does not refer to all removal of information from a computer without permission.

            Edward Snowden did not HACK the NSA, He is a leaker not a hacker. He had legitimate access but was not authorized to remove the information he took.

          2. The DNC was “hacked” twice.

            It is NOT known by who. Anyone who claims to know through computer forensic means who hacked any computer – is lying.

            It is not possible to identify the source of any hack today without insider information.

            CrowdStrike is the only computer security firm that claims to provide sources for hacks. They have been notoriously wrong.
            And are wise enough not to make such stupid claims under oath.

            Your screenshot claim is pure garbage. If you can see an email on your screen 100 miles from the computer – the data has been Exfiltrated.

            No reputable hacker is going to take tens of thousands of screenshots when they can just transfer the data.

            Do you know anything about computers at all ?

            Please go hack yourself.

            You will be caught instantly and jailed and the rest of us will not have to listen to this garbage.

        2. The term hacking is constantly abused.

          To those of us who used computers in the 60’s and 70’s hacking was a term of respect given to those who quickly and brilliantly solved a computer problem.

          Cracking was the process of breaking into a computer.

          Regardless, even in today’s world hacking requires the use of technical measures to gain unauthorized access to a computer – usually over a network.

          Snowden as an example did not “hack” the NSA – he did illegally exfiltrate classified information – on thumb drives.

          It is highly likely the DNC emails were similarly exfiltrated.

          1. And Rodger Stone did provide that info to Wiki leaks and did get it from Snowden!!!

            1. Stone had no direct contact with Wikileaks. All communications between Stone and Wikileaks was through Randy Credico and one way.
              And Randy Credico did NOT forward anything from Stone to Wikileaks as Credico wanted to keep Assange to himself.

              Snowden had nothing to do with this.

                1. Linking to yourself ?

                  What narcisism!

                  The argument failed first time.
                  It is no better repeated.

  10. October 20, 2020

    “Nine months ago, January 20, 2020 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Communist People’s Republic of China.

    “The United States was at peace with that nation and, wittingly or unwittingly, through criminal dereliction and negligence and attempting to obtain the cloak of plausible deniability, the People’s Republic of China released on the world the COVID-19 biological weapon.

    “China has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the World. The Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy has directed his entire Cabinet that all measures be taken for the defense of the United States.

    “With confidence in the United States Center For Disease Control and with the unbounding determination of the American people the Untied States will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God.

    “Congress must declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by China on January 20, 2020, a state of war has existed between the United States and China.”

    – President Donald J. Trump

    1. Yep, questions of; is FBI investigating. Shop owner said he gave original hard drive to FBI and had made and retained a copy. FBI Dir Wray seems to want to just sit on everything as AG Barr is sitting on Durham report. Based on all released emails, etc., seems Mueller knew that DT had no Russian collusion very early on, yet dragged it out for nearly 3 years. Now not anyone is pursuing Hillary, Biden or obama. The new rule of law is just the ones they choose to implement on each occasion.

      1. Lightered, the GOP led Senate Intelligence Committee report, released in August, corroborates and itemizes Trump campaign collusion with the Russians and verifies that the Russians interfered in the election with the specific goal of helping Trump and damaging Hillary, and the the Russians hacked the DNC emails.

        For your position to be correct you have to believe that not only did the supposed Deep State purposefully sabotage Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election by announcing a new investigation into her emails, but that at the same time these Deep State leaders protected Trump from public knowledge of the investigation into his campaign, but you also have to believe the GOP led Senate Int Comm is in on the plot.

        You understand why that is so, correct?

  11. Robert G. Kaufman: 2020 Election Will Determine Whether China Wins or Loses by Unleashing the Coronavirus

    Sen. Kamala Harris’s dangerous evasion on China during her debate with Vice President Mike Pence avoided perhaps a most critical question, the answer to which could be determined by the outcome of this year’s election.

    Will China’s negligence in unleashing the coronavirus and mendacity in exploiting it catalyze a reckoning with the People’s Republic of China, comparable to the Czech Coup of 1948 that crystallized America’s successful long-term determination to contain the Soviet Union? Or will China ultimately emerge as the winner from the devastation it has inflicted on the world, because of a deficit of strategic and moral clarity within the United States and among our allies?

    On one hand, negative views of China have soared to a record high of 73 percent of Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in late July 2020.

    Chinese behavior during and since the coronavirus has also elicited strong negative reactions across the Indo-Pacific, especially in Japan, India, and Australia, where views of China’s ambitions and behavior already trended strongly in a negative direction. Even in Western Europe, long committed to engaging and conciliating rather than confronting China, COVID has generated an anti-China backlash, more muted on the continent but stronger in Britain where British Prime Minister Boris Johnson joined President Trump in imposing a complete ban on Chinese 5G vendor Huawei.

    Robert G. Kaufman is Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University and author of Dangerous Doctrine: How Obama’s Grand Strategy Weakened America.

  12. Hunter Biden email detailing alleged Chinese ties confirmed by source: report

    Trump says damning info found on Hunter Biden’s laptop is the ‘real deal’
    Hey, Joe Biden, what did you know about Hunter’s dirty deals?: Goodwin
    Twitter censoring Post’s Biden exposé is ‘election interference’: GOP leaders
    Hunter Biden also had business dealings in Kazakhstan: report

    An email thread that appears to show Hunter Biden pursuing a lucrative energy business deal in China — and possibly cutting his father in on the action — has been verified as authentic by one of its recipients, Fox News reported Friday night. The Fox report also cast light on a tantalizing mystery in the emails, as first raised by The Post — a reference to 10 percent of the proposed business’s equity perhaps going to “The big guy.” “The big guy” was a reference to Joe Biden, Fox revealed, citing unnamed “sources.” The Post had broken the news of the Chinese wheeling-dealings on Thursday — but the reference to “the big guy” had not previously been clarified. Fox’s source verifying that the emails are authentic is not named, but the network said the person was someone copied on the thread. Hunter Biden, in the email, was identified as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” an apparent reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co. The email outlined a “provisional agreement” under which 80 percent of the “equity,” or shares in the new company, would be split equally among four people whose initials correspond to the sender and three recipients, with “H” apparently referring to Hunter Biden. The deal also listed “10 Jim” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” “Sources told Fox News that “the big guy” is a reference to the former vice president,” Fox reported. Biden’s campaign has denied wrongdoing.

    1. Joe Biden-Linked Firm Made Major Investments in Chinese Corporations

      Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son-in-law’s investment firm has made investments in Chinese corporations over the last few years. Biden’s daughter, Ashley, married Philadelphia head and neck doctor Howard Krein in 2012. Krein, who is currently advising Biden for his campaign, remains chief medical officer at the firm StartUp Health, which has tied itself in partnerships with Chinese corporations through the years. StartUp Health boosted two major China-based corporations in 2018 and most recently praised China’s response to the Chinese coronavirus crisis. “China’s systematic and urgent response to contain COVID-19 has become a kind of playbook for other countries working to ramp up similar impromptu yet systemized efforts to stay the spread of this novel infectious disease,” a StartUp Health post in March states. The China-based Medebound corporation, which connects Chinese patients with American doctors, has gotten help from StartUp Health in their initiatives venturing into the U.S. market.

      Likewise, StartUp Health considers China-based Ping An, one of China’s largest insurance corporations, a “StartUp Health Investor and partner.”

      A post from 2018 by StartUp Health states:

      In the last few years, however, Ping An has gotten into the healthcare game and built a budding healthcare ecosystem within their organization.Th eir most notable project to date, Ping An Good Doctor, has raised about 1.1 billion dollars and is now the largest telehealth platform in the world, with over 192 million registered users. Ping An took the platform public at the beginning of May.
      In November 2018, Medebound and Ping An — both associated with StartUp Health — entered into a “comprehensive cooperation” to build “a docking channel for the top medical resources in China and the U.S. on radiology, oncology, cardio-cerebral vascular diseases and altogether 72 medical specialties.” Questions surrounding StartUp Health’s seemingly close connections to Biden when he was vice president from 2009 to 2016 have circulated with the publication of a Politico report this week. In that report, it was revealed that Krein has been investing in coronavirus solution companies while advising Biden on the coronavirus on the campaign trail.

      John Binder 17 Oct 2020

  13. “…
    The Clinton emails were hacked by the Russians but they were also true. 

    CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.

    Bull Binney, more importantly, demonstrated from the beginning of this “Russian Conspiracy”, this incredible popular delusion, this McCarthyism, that he tried numerous times from numerous locations to “hack”, which is to say “download” the so-called Clinton e-mails, but could not. (The issue is speed).

    Moreover, he challenged anyone to examine, to dispute his finds. No one did or can dispute his findings.
    There was no “hack”, Russian or otherwise.
    Mr. Binney challenged anyone to show, to demonstrate that a hack was practical or even possible from a technological basis.
    No did or has ever shown or demonstrated how a “hack”, Russian or otherwise was done.

    Nevertheless, the professor persists in babbling this falsehood.

    dennis hanna

        1. That’s testimony under oath before Congress, Michael. What sources are acceptable to you?

    1. Minor Correction.

      The DNC was “hacked” twice – once in July 2015 and lasting for many months and not detected until much later.
      Once in March and lasting until mid June. That Hack was detected in late may and crowdstrike called in.

      There is near zero doubt that the DNC was hacked.

      The question is whether the DNC emails were “exfiltrated” as a result of either of those hacks.

      The Crowdstrike testimony is that there is no evidence the exfiltration of the emaisl was the result of the hack, and the VIPS evidence is that exfiltratting via a hack is impossible given other evidence.

      The same flaw exists in Binney’s and Crowdstrike’s analysis. It presumes that the “fingerprints” left behind are accurate.

      Binney presumes that file dates and times were not altered after the fact. Crowdstrike presumes that the logs are not altered and that only the russians use russian hacking tools.

      These are assumptions not facts. Binney’s assumptions are better than CrowdStrikes, but still assumptions.

      Confirming another assertion of yours – most everyone in IT security KNOWS that you can not prove the source of a hack. The level of sophistication possible by even script kiddies today is too high. And every bit of evidence you have after the fact is undetectably forgeable, and any errors you think you find could just as easily be false flags.

      1. Bonney is, I think, incorrect about the download times, the copy times could reflect a subsequent copying action. However it is quite correct that the identifying of the hackers as Russian Intelligence is fatally flawed. At the time of the hack, both the supposed tool sets (Fancy and Cosy Bear) were available to interested purchasers on the “dark web”, and those tools had indeed already been used by non-state actors.

        And it is correct t to say that the emails were not proven to be downloaded by the hackers and the sworn testimony reflects that.

        Another point about the supposed whole incidence is that the Guccifer2 persona that turned up subsequently was a plant, either a John Brennan CIA special, or more likely a Crowdstrike person. There is some concealed metadata in the file compression mechanisms used by G2 that reveal that the user was working in US EST Timezone.that of course explains why the supposed “professional” GRU (or FSB) operative was so exceedingly careless as to leave a dozen or more “breadcrumb” clues in his work to so obviously point out that he was really Russian and not the Rumanian he claimed. That act was criminal.

        1. Binney is not incorrect, nor are you.
          Excellent points overall.

          The transfer times he uses are correct, but I do not think it is possible to know whether they are a subsequent transfer.

          HOWEVER – CrowdStrike was watching the last hack for a couple of weeks – if there was a mass exfiltration at that time – they would have seen it. They did not.

          Given the evidence we have at the moment it is not possible to determine if the exfiltration was via hack or leak or if the hack was by Russia.

          Had Crowstrike caught the transfer as it occured – and they WERE obsevering for a few weeks we could know that the emails were exfiltrated by hack.

          With the evidence we have the odds are that they were not.

          I do not know that G2 was a plant – but he was NOT “the DNC hacker”

          All the bread crumbs are almost useless. it is not possible to trace a hack today. Even if there are “bread crumbs” they could be false.

          Almost everyone beleived that Stuxnet was from Israel until the Snowden leaks.

          The other issue is this is not how Russia works.

          Russia provides protection for dozens of criminal hacking enterprises that rip credit card companies off for about 32B/year in return for occaisionally having the perform espionage.

          Unlike the US, CCP, NK they do not have state hired hackers.

        2. The level of deception possible with bread crumbs is so convoluted that a hacker can actually leave clues pointing to themselves deliberately – because it is so likely that all bread crumbs are deliberate effort to mislead, that you can mislead by pointing at yourself.

      2. It is that very sophistication that shows who did it. Also there is this. When a state actor hacks another country’s computers there are fragment of code left behind. These fragments will tell you where that hacker was trained as there are different ways that hacking is done. It is never definitive as to who did the hacking but those fragments of code will tell you where the hack originated from. As most hackers in Russia are all in one place and are employed by the Russian Army it is pretty well known who did the hacking!

        1. “It is that very sophistication that shows who did it.”
          Nope, some of the best hackers in the world are NOT part of government.

          “When a state actor hacks another country’s computers there are fragment of code left behind.”
          Correct – we know that the toolkits used for these hacks was from Russia.
          But the Russian toolkits used were several years old and EVERYONE has them. The pakistani’s the Iranian’s, the Chinese and independent black hats. When the US hacked Iran (stuxnet) they used Israeli tools and the whole world assumed it was israel until Snowden’s leaks proved it was the US.

          You can not determine the source of a hack today from the code.

          I am an embedded software developer. I had a friend in the NSA involved in security, and I have many friends in US software companies involved in cryptography and security. Anyone who knows anything about hacking knows that it is not possible today to trace a source by forensic means.

          ” These fragments will tell you where that hacker was trained as there are different ways that hacking is done.”
          Nope. You should look up “false flags. Also Stuxnet. Also I beleive the French TV hack occured at almost the same time used the same hacking tools and technigues was initially atributed to russian and subsequently established as from hackers in Turkey.

          “It is never definitive as to who did the hacking but those fragments of code will tell you where the hack originated from.”
          They tel you where the hacking tools originated. That is all. But everyone has everyone else’s tools today.

          “As most hackers in Russia are all in one place and are employed by the Russian Army it is pretty well known who did the hacking!”
          Totally false. Russia is unique amoung state hackers in that it does not have a consequential State employed body of hackers.
          Russia provides “protection” for black hat hackers in eastern europe in return for their periodically acting for Russian.

          This is one of the reasons that the FBI can not reign in 32B in credit care fraud each year. Because the hackers are protected by Russia.

          Remember the Russian Economy is 1.6T the Chinese 16T and the US is 22T The US Defense budget is more than 1/2 the size of the entire russian economy. Russia can not afford the capabilities that the US or China can.

          1. From the GOP majority controlled Report of the Senate Intel Committee, released 4 months ago (rumor has it that they have friends that work for the NSA, CIA, and FBI):

            “Hack and Leak

            (U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
            effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
            information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was
            to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
            Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
            U.S. democratic process.

            -WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian
            influen~ery likely knew it was assistin a Russian intelli ence influence
            effort. The Committee found si nificant indications tha
            At the time of the
            first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile
            organization and many treated itas a journalistic entity.

            (U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump
            Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral
            prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases,
            created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following
            thdr release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the
            attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and
            WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort. The Committee found no
            evidence that Campaign officials received an authoritative government notification that the hack
            was perpetrated by the Russian government before October 7, 2016, when the ODNI and DHS
            issued a joint statement to that effect. However, the Campaign was aware of the extensive media
            reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point.

            (U) Trump and senior Campaign offici.als sought to obtain advance information about
            WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump
            and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that
            Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more
            releases would be forthcoming. The Committee could not reliably determine the extent.of
            authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the
            Campaign. …”


            1. Wow! so Senators presented with a subset of the actual facts reached laughably stupid conclusions.

              Todate it is not possible to determine whether the DNC emails reached wikileaks as a result of a hack – much less a russian one.

              Any group that has found otherwise is not credible. Yes, that includes republican Senators.


            On Friday the Debate Commission announced their topics for Friday, which are bizarrely similar to the first debate topics. The second debate will feature: Fighting COVID-19; American Families; Race in America; Climate Change; National Security; and Leadership.

            The first debate topics were: Covid-19; The Economy; Race and Violence in our Cities; The Integrity of the Election; The Supreme Court; and Trump and Biden’s Records.


            1. “The news of the third debate leaving a major foreign policy focus out was met with further derision from the Trump campaign, which has already lambasted the Commission for attempting to make the debates virtual, and for choosing moderators with a track record of bias.

              The proposed debate moderator for the second debate – Steve Scully – was indefinitely suspended from his job last week after lying about being hacked on Twitter. He was actually participating in a ploy to humiliate Donald Trump with the help of Trump-basher Anthony Scaramucci. Most of his friends in the media also lied about his hack.

              Trump campaign strategist Jason Miller tweeted of the third debate topics on Monday morning: “Good morning to everyone except Presidential Debate Commission members who changed focus of final debate away from foreign policy so Joe Biden wouldn’t have to answer to being compromised by the Chinese Communist Party, supporting endless wars and sending pallets of cash to Iran.”

              1. “The National Pulse understands that while “national security” has been included in the list of topics by moderator Kristen Welker, the campaigns had long been discussing the subject being the majority of the debate, rather than regurgitating on issues such as COVID, climate change, and race.

                Those topics were both covered in the first debate, and in the substantive Vice Presidential debate which saw VP Mike Pence emerge unquestionably victorious over a hectoring Kamala Harris.

                The Hunter Biden laptop and e-mails were initially reported by the New York Post last week, triggering a cavalcade of censorship by Big Tech firms, as well as a failure by reputable media outlets to ask Joe Biden about the distressing revelations contained within, such as Hunter’s ties to Ukraine, to Moscow, and to the Chinese Communist Party.

                Speaking to Maria Bartiromo on Fox News on Monday morning, Jason Miller added: “If the moderator doesn’t bring [Hunter Biden’s e-mails] up, I think you’re safe to assume that the President will. Again, these are real simple questions that Joe Biden needs to answer to the American public. And keep in mind this is supposed to be a debate on foreign policy. I know the Debate Commission is trying to move the goal posts yet again and work in a bunch of other issues. We’re going to talk about Biden’s support for endless wars, talk about the piles of cash loaded up with billions of dollars and sent to Iran, and we’re going to talk about all the foreign corruption, the foreign money that’s been coming into the Biden family. If Joe Biden can’t answer these real simple questions, you know he’s running from something.”

                Thursday night’s moderator, Kristen Welker, has already been called into question given her family has donated thousands to Democrats including Joe Biden. Welker even took her father to Obama and Biden’s Christmas Party in 2012.


Comments are closed.