If Donald Trump’s attorney general saw fit to appoint a special counsel for the Russia collusion hoax, why doesn’t Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, see fit to appoint a special counsel for the very serious influence-peddling allegations swirling around Hunter Biden?

The former, of course, was the fakest and most fraudulent of frame-ups, while the latter is everything one could imagine in terms of corruptive influence on a presidential administration. And so we ask again: Where’s the special counsel? Inquiring minds want to know.

If we’re to take Joe Biden at his word — hey, work with us here — he’d be fully supportive of such an appointment by his attorney general. We know this because of what he said just after nominating Garland to the post. “One of the most serious pieces of damage done by the last administration was the politicizing of the Justice Department,” said Honest Joe at a CNN town hall a month after taking office. “I made a commitment, I will not ever tell my Justice Department — and it’s not mine, it’s the people’s Justice Department — who they should and should not prosecute.”

So, Merrick: What’s the holdup?

What’s interesting here is the corner that Biden has painted himself into. He’s steadfastly maintained that he has no knowledge of his son’s business dealings. In fact, he said as much to Fox News’s Peter Doocy during a 2019 campaign event in Iowa. “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said.

“Never” is pretty easy to fact-check, especially when there are pictures of both Bidens golfing with Hunter’s business partners, and testimony from the likes of former business partner Tony Bobulinski as to his face-to-face business meeting with Joe Biden, and emails from Hunter’s partners referring to “the big guy.” And yet now the president and his chief of staff, Ron Klain, are professing Hunter’s innocence of unethical or criminal wrongdoing or monetary gain, even though he claims to have no knowledge of the business dealings in question.

Well, Joe, which is it? Because it can’t be both.

In a recent column in The Hill, law professor Jonathan Turley pokes one hole after another in both Joe Biden’s position and the mainstream media’s efforts to shield him from his son’s legal troubles, which are currently playing out under a grand jury in Delaware. But Turley saves his strongest shot for the nation’s attorney general:

Garland pledged to protect the Justice Department from such conflicts and to avoid even the appearance of political influence. He now has a president stating that alleged wrongdoing by his son is “absolutely” untrue, including dealings possibly impacting the president personally and financially. If Garland declines to appoint a special counsel, he will absolutely fail on his pledge.

One of the things we’ve noticed in politics in recent years is that the arc of truth tends to bend toward the conservative version of events. That’s because the mainstream media makes the Left’s best and most damning case right at the onset, while the Right is forced back onto its heels until it has time to dig for the whole truth. Hate crimes are a perfect example, as they almost always turn out to be hoaxes. The Russia collusion hoax is another great example, as is Biden’s border malfeasance, the Left’s ridiculous insistence that the 2020 election was utterly free of fraud, and the Left’s over-the-top January 6 hysteria. Think of a major scandal, and it’s likely that it began worse than it ended for the Right.

We mention this because we haven’t yet gotten to the whole truth about Hunter Biden’s influence peddling and the obvious involvement of his father, “the big guy,” the current president of the United States. But we can safely bet that an investigation isn’t going to reflect favorably on either Biden.

There’s a wealth of compelling evidence that Joe Biden’s influence was for sale by his son and that the father was receiving payment for it. That email on Hunter’s laptop with the proposed monetary distributions of a deal with a Chinese energy company? The one that asks, “10 held by H for the big guy?”

Ten of what? And who’s “the big guy”?

If ever a special counsel were called for, this is it.