Constitutional law expert and George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley said he was stunned that the most recent indictments of Hunter Biden did not include some key elements of his suspected illicit business dealings.
Turley expressed his reservations in an interview with Fox News host John Roberts earlier this week.
Roberts began: “You wrote a couple of columns, one in the New York Post, in which you called the charges against Hunter Biden, the 55-page document, a ‘Voldemort indictment,’ citing ‘he who shall not be named,’ and you said, ‘The steps taken by Hunter to evade taxes are impressive, but not nearly as impressive as the efforts of the Justice Department to evade any direct implications for his father, President Biden. In that sense, the indictment itself is a marvel of evasion.’ What do you believe is missing from this indictment?”
“It was a fascinating indictment,” Turley began. “Obviously, it shatters things stated by the president and the White House, it documents a level of influence-peddling that we have never seen the like of, just millions of dollars coming from foreign sources, going through all of these accounts.
“But throughout this,” he continued, “there’s one person who just seems to be completely omitted, and that is Joe Biden.
“It’s like arresting a bank robber for speeding away from the crime scene without mentioning why he was speeding,” Turley explained. “And you know, all these details are how Hunter Biden got all of this money from all of these foreign sources, from Ukraine, Romania, China. But there is nary a mention of the president himself.
“There’s also no mention of FARA [Foreign Agent Registration Act], you know, the Department of Justice has given out FARA charges like [former 2016 Trump campaign manager] Paul Manafort in short order,” Turley said. “They were not in any way reluctant to bring those charges that you are an unregistered foreign agent.”
“This complaint screams of being an unregistered foreign agent, but that is also not mentioned,” the law expert said. “But finally, it’s also not mentioned, of course, that they allowed some of these crimes to expire. There is still no explanation why the special counsel decided, when he didn’t have to, to let the early felonies expire and all of those questions are left unanswered.”
Roberts responded: “Quick question if I could, with a couple seconds left. Do you believe it was intentional on the part of the DOJ to let those years, those potential charges, expire under the statute of limitations?”
“Well, the problem, John, I don’t know of any explanation because they had a deal on the table to extend the period,” Turley offered. “Why would you let it expire if you were a prosecutor? There’s no rational reason. And so it would be helpful if they could come up with one. I can’t imagine one.”
