Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hunter Biden's Laptop [Merged]


and-then
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The story sounds like it was written by Juicy Smolliet.

The left would know!

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Drugs are already a vice he admits to in his memoir.

Yes. And?

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

An independently weatlthy guy personally drops of a laptop to be repaired.  The laptop, not the cloud, contained emails from when he was a CEO of some Ukrainian company.  How old would that laptop be?

No idea, how old is that laptop? 

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

These facts don't ring true.  Which company was he CEO of?

Burisma! 

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Now where did you confirm the contents of the laptop?

The internet. 

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

More than half-a-century of political bias culminates in phone hacking scandal and an apology makes him the prodigal son son of journalism.

I don't understand this paragraph. 

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That's not the rationale. The story doesn't ring true.  And Murdox is the only one confirming it.  What makes it true for you?

Yet here we are, with the mainstream media admitting it's true. Honestly, I thought they admitted this a month after the story was buried. Turns out I was wrong. It shouldn't shock me, but it does shock me, that people still think the laptop story is fake. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The left would know!

Yes. And?

No idea, how old is that laptop? 

Burisma! 

The internet. 

I don't understand this paragraph. 

Yet here we are, with the mainstream media admitting it's true. Honestly, I thought they admitted this a month after the story was buried. Turns out I was wrong. It shouldn't shock me, but it does shock me, that people still think the laptop story is fake. 

You have nothing that suggests the story is plausible, let alone true.  EG, Hunter Biden was never CEO of Burisma.

And all you can do assert those that don't agree with your "true" belief are the Left, because it's the only way you can be Right.

 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You have nothing that suggests the story is plausible, let alone true. 

Yet the mainstream media right this very moment is saying it's true! It's the reason this thread was resurrected - what was once seen as misinformation is now true. 

 

43 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

EG, Hunter Biden was never CEO of Burisma.

And all you can do assert those that don't agree with your "true" belief are the Left, because it's the only way you can be Right.

 

 Honestly, I haven't read up on this story since November/December 2020. Maybe I'm getting Burisma mixed up with another company. Or maybe I have the job description wrong, maybe he wasn't "CEO", but "COO" or "XOO", or "executive in charge of random stuff". Or some other title. The point is Hunter Biden was paid large sums of money by a company in Ukraine, in a job he was supremely unqualified for (Biden does that very well, I wish I could sell my artworks for 3/4 million bucks). And there are emails on the laptop from companies in Ukraine saying thanks to him for introducing him to his dad, despite Joe Biden claiming Hunter's business in Ukraine had nothing to do with his dealings as VP.

But by all means, continue to be wrong about things :tu:  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yet the mainstream media right this very moment is saying it's true! It's the reason this thread was resurrected. 

 

 Honestly, I haven't read up on this story since November/December 2020. Maybe I'm getting Burisma mixed up with another company. Or maybe I have the job description wrong, maybe he wasn't "CEO", but "COO" or "XOO", or some other title. The point is Hunter Biden was paid large sums of money by a company in Ukraine, in a job he was supremely unqualified for (Biden does that very well, I wish I could sell my artworks for 3/4 million bucks). And there are emails on the laptop from companies in Ukraine saying thanks to him for introducing him to his dad, despite Joe Biden claiming Hunter's business in Ukraine had nothing to do with his dealings as VP.

But by all means, continue to be wrong about things :tu:  

This thread about Hunter Biden's laptop is being covered by Murdoch media.

I scroll down about two screen ov news to get to an article by The Guardian.  It says Weiss didn't want to influence the election like Comey.

I'm happy to see what convinces you this this laptop story is true, as long as is it's something other than Murdoch says so.  I've asked for it half a dozen or so times now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

...other than Murdoch says so...

Quote

Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

In some of the emails, Mr. Biden displayed a familiarity with FARA, and a desire to avoid triggering it.

In one email to Mr. Archer in April 2014, Mr. Biden outlined his vision for working with Burisma. In the email, Hunter Biden indicated that the forthcoming announcement of a trip to Ukraine by Vice President Biden — who is referred to in the email as “my guy,” but not by name — should “be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands.”

The announcement “could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation. We need to temper expectations regarding that visit,” Hunter Biden wrote.

Vice President Biden traveled to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, about a week after the email.

Full article - New York Times

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yet the mainstream media right this very moment is saying it's true! It's the reason this thread was resurrected - what was once seen as misinformation is now true. 

Its a well known fact the MSM only lies about trump.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Full article - New York Times

So why do you think this story is true?  Is it because the MSM, that you say can't be trusted, is now saying what you want?

Do you have an a/c with the NYT?  Your link is asking me to sign up.

Or, did you find the link via Glenn Greenwald?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know if it is true or not.   Certainly enough smoke to investigate thoroughly.   

Either way, we know the bidens are a corrupt bunch of folks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I'm happy to see what convinces you this this laptop story is true, as long as is it's something other than Murdoch says so.  I've asked for it half a dozen or so times now.

Me too, they have no actual proof, and when I ask for it on other places they accuse me of wanting them to post *** Blocked *** and 'the FBI which TOTALLY has the *** Blocked *** would definitely cover for them, it couldn't be there's NO *** Blocked *** because my pre-existing biases say there must be!'

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I was including Fox among "the media".

Where in the following were you including Fox?  Nowhere of course, because the below is a story/message/narrative that Fox News itself pushes:

"Maybe how the media treated this story is how the media SHOULD treat ALL stories. It would avoid messy cases like the Covington Catholic School guy (Nick Sandman). But they don't. They consistently run with stories that favour democrats and demonise republicans, and they suppress any story that runs counter to that narrative. They'll smear the right and issue corrections two days later that virtually no one reads while simultaneously refusing to run any anti-leftist article until its been thoroughly vetted for truth, and by the time they report on it it is so far in the past that it doesn't matter anymore (like Hunter's laptop)."

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That was my intent in saying "everyone knows", it's a general statement that on the balance of statistics, a statistically significant difference exists in the number of people who actively distrust Fox News.

Does that clarify anything? 

I guess it clarifies it but I'm not sure if it supports it.  I assumed the point concerning 'everyone knows' is that everyone knows they shouldn't trust Fox, yet it appears that only a minority actually distrusts it.  I guess I'm used to 'everyone knows' being used in situations where it applies at least to the majority.  This was at the core of what you thought was a big issue, that everyone knows not to trust Fox but too many people in your view trust CNN, 'propaganda', etc. That doesn't hold in my view when so many people apparently do not distrust Fox.  Nor is there any evidence I'm aware of that people shouldn't distrust Fox more than CNN, maybe people distrust Fox more because they are untruthful more often than CNN, so far your idea that CNN is equal or worse seems to be based on a personal belief.

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I do personally believe they are more trustworthy than CNN

That's fine and expected, but Fox News' lawyers won't even argue for the trustworthiness of some of their programming.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Full article - New York Times

It doesn't matter what evidence is posted... The true Biden supporters will say its NOT proof. Then say no proof has been put forward. Bobulinski is not proof. Actual emails in NYT article with actual email address of Hunter, is not proof. Though Twitter and FB both banned the article to protect those emails... 

So there's no proof. Even though the proof is overwhelming that the laptop is real, and is Hunters, and was full of porn, and emails linking Papa Joe to various money schemes and influencing seeking by foreign nationals.

No proof....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

So why do you think this story is true?  Is it because the MSM, that you say can't be trusted, is now saying what you want?

Do you have an a/c with the NYT?  Your link is asking me to sign up.

Or, did you find the link via Glenn Greenwald?

Yes, I have a NYT subscription. I wasn't aware this was a subscriber article. I don't know who Glenn Greenwald is (at least, the name isn't familiar off the top of my head). 

That said, why do I believe this story? Several reasons:

1 - Because after 17 months, if the story wasn't true the NYT wouldn't be referencing it
2 - As you don't have access to the article, you would not know this, but the material I quoted in my post was paragraphs 24-27 in a 38 paragraph article - the perfect place to bury information you don't want people to read.
3 - It is a subscriber article, which means they are admitting to being lying liars in an article that only some people will be able to see. 

#2 is the major one in this. It's a well-known tactic to bury information you don't want people to see deep in the article. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Where in the following were you including Fox?  Nowhere of course, because the below is a story/message/narrative that Fox News itself pushes:

"Maybe how the media treated this story is how the media SHOULD treat ALL stories. It would avoid messy cases like the Covington Catholic School guy (Nick Sandman). But they don't. They consistently run with stories that favour democrats and demonise republicans, and they suppress any story that runs counter to that narrative. They'll smear the right and issue corrections two days later that virtually no one reads while simultaneously refusing to run any anti-leftist article until its been thoroughly vetted for truth, and by the time they report on it it is so far in the past that it doesn't matter anymore (like Hunter's laptop)."

I guess I am using the term "media" inconsistently. I guess my big follow up to this is to ask whether you have a term that would be appropriate? It's hard to argue about "the media" because it is such a huge group, but at the same time I think it's something that does need to be addressed. I'll try to be more consistent. 

 

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I guess it clarifies it but I'm not sure if it supports it.  I assumed the point concerning 'everyone knows' is that everyone knows they shouldn't trust Fox, yet it appears that only a minority actually distrusts it.  I guess I'm used to 'everyone knows' being used in situations where it applies at least to the majority.  This was at the core of what you thought was a big issue, that everyone knows not to trust Fox but too many people in your view trust CNN, 'propaganda', etc. That doesn't hold in my view when so many people apparently do not distrust Fox.  Nor is there any evidence I'm aware of that people shouldn't distrust Fox more than CNN, maybe people distrust Fox more because they are untruthful more often than CNN, so far your idea that CNN is equal or worse seems to be based on a personal belief.

"Everyone", as I said, was a general statement signifying that this is a statistically significant number. 8% is a statistically significant swing when it comes to distrusting media. That's almost 10% more distrust than any other news network. And by your own statistics, Fox is the largest news network in America - how is it that a channel that more people watch than any other network also has the highest distrust of any news outlet by a significant margin? This is because the majority of people who watch non-Fox channels don't trust Fox. You can't say the same about CNN, they have a higher trust rating than Fox, despite the fact that they are as bad (if not worse) than Fox. 

 

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's fine and expected, but Fox News' lawyers won't even argue for the trustworthiness of some of their programming.

I admit that I am guessing as to which situation you are referring to, so if my guess is wrong, please correct me. 

That said, it sounds like you are referencing the situation in which Tucker Carlson's lawyers argued his show is an opinion (NPR link). If this is indeed the situation to which you refer, this article doesn't reflect the actual facts of what happened, and the fact you aren't aware of this says much about the power of the mainstream media to misrepresent and lie directly to your face. 

Because the link that I provided is representative of the vast majority of mainstream news networks. Almost every source I could find had a similarly misleading headline as the NPR link above. There are very few sources from mainstream news that reported the truth. The Hill put out an article that reports closer to the truth. Notice how the article in this version does not sensationalise anything, and instead just reports the facts? 

Now, compare this story to another story that the NPR article quoted: 

Quote

Media lawyers note this is not the first time this sort of defense has been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."

They literally cite a near-identical story about Rachel Maddow and MSNBC, in a situation where her lawyers argued the exact same thing that Tucker Carlson did. At the height of hypocrisy, NPR actually cites that situation and spins it to make it appear reasonable. The vast majority of other mainstream sources are equally glowing about Rachel Maddow - it was reasonable, nothing to see here. 

Do a Google search for yourself with the search words "Tucker Carlson/Rachel Maddow" and "reasonable viewer". "Reasonable viewer" is the term both judges used to sum up the cases about Maddow and Carlson, so realistically the search engine should come back with roughly identical results. Yet it's interesting that virtually every single hit about Tucker Carlson includes the highly misleading headline "judge rules viewers don't turn to Tucker Carlson for facts", and in virtually every single hit about Rachel Maddow the article has a much less sensational but far more accurate headline "Rachel Maddow wins defamation suit against OAN". 

If you read the lawsuit, or the judge's notes, or even if you looked up a lawyerly take on things from any of the lawyers who run YouTube channels or blogs, and you will know that the legal matters between Maddow and Carlson are virtually identical - the judge basically said that Carlson and Maddow run programs that include commentary on facts, and opinions on where those facts might lead, and that a reasonable viewer would understand that this contextualises both programs as to include opinion discussion. Therefore neither case was a situation of "defamation".  In fact, many lawyers who covered Carlson's case described his argument as "The Maddow Defense", and predicted a very easy victory for Tucker because of this.  

In other words, both stories are nothing-burgers! They aren't controversial, both cases literally just point out that they are commentaries on news and include pundits with differing views and opinions, therefore it cannot be defamation! Yet look at the reporting of the two events? As I suggested, do a Google search and see for yourself. 

The Hill is one of the few places that reported the truth, and no surprise that The Hill gets a good centrist rating on various media bias rating sites. If you managed to check The Hill's version of reporting on Maddow, you'll note that the headline in both stories is virtually identical. It's just about the only mainstream network (including Fox) that I am more inclined to believe at face value, I certainly think they avoid bias more than most others. 

As said, if I have guessed wrong and you aren't referring to this situation, then let me know and I'll respond later. But as it is, it sounds like you are talking about the Carlson case, and it sounds like you've been completely fooled by the media into thinking Carlson's lawyers argued that Fox isn't trustworthy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It doesn't matter what evidence is posted... The true Biden supporters will say its NOT proof. Then say no proof has been put forward. Bobulinski is not proof. Actual emails in NYT article with actual email address of Hunter, is not proof. Though Twitter and FB both banned the article to protect those emails... 

So there's no proof. Even though the proof is overwhelming that the laptop is real, and is Hunters, and was full of porn, and emails linking Papa Joe to various money schemes and influencing seeking by foreign nationals.

No proof....

The emails are in the NYT artlicle, are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yes, I have a NYT subscription. I wasn't aware this was a subscriber article. I don't know who Glenn Greenwald is (at least, the name isn't familiar off the top of my head). 

That said, why do I believe this story? Several reasons:

1 - Because after 17 months, if the story wasn't true the NYT wouldn't be referencing it
2 - As you don't have access to the article, you would not know this, but the material I quoted in my post was paragraphs 24-27 in a 38 paragraph article - the perfect place to bury information you don't want people to read.
3 - It is a subscriber article, which means they are admitting to being lying liars in an article that only some people will be able to see. 

#2 is the major one in this. It's a well-known tactic to bury information you don't want people to see deep in the article. 

Those a reasons for a reasonable apprehension. But, we're only weighing up a balance of probabilities based on MSM.

Personally I can't remember signing a quote as a retail customer.  I've done it in a loss adjustment type role.  By 2014 everyone I know was using the cloud for emails and multimedia.  What was actually on the MacBook in 2019?  Accessing the cloud via laptop seems outside the scope of the quoted work.

The laptop story smells like a way of presenting evidence to the court of public opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Full article - New York Times

So from the email, he knew his father was going to the Ukraine, but what he would say was out of his hands?  How scandalous!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Accessing the cloud via laptop seems outside the scope of the quoted work.

Because Hunter didn't pay for the work or return to collect it. After 90 days and several attempts at communication by the repair shop to try and get it sorted, the terms of the contract Hunter signed says that the laptop became the repair shop's property as payment for the job (because Hunter didn't pay for it himself). That was when the repair guy found the emails and sent it to the FBI. 

All fair and above board, really :tu: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I guess my big follow up to this is to ask whether you have a term that would be appropriate? It's hard to argue about "the media" because it is such a huge group, but at the same time I think it's something that does need to be addressed.

The term for what you are describing is I think, 'biased left-wing media'.  Everything you say, taken vice versa, applies to the right wing media. I recommend continuing to refer to 'the media' but as you said be consistent, you used pretty accurately the term 'Faux News' so that practically admits that 'They consistently run with stories that favour democrats and demonise republicans, and they suppress any story that runs counter to that narrative. They'll smear the right and issue corrections two days later that virtually no one reads while simultaneously refusing to run any anti-leftist article until its been thoroughly vetted for truth, and by the time they report on it it is so far in the past that it doesn't matter anymore' applies at least equally the other way to right wing outlets. 

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That said, it sounds like you are referencing the situation in which Tucker Carlson's lawyers argued his show is an opinion (NPR link). If this is indeed the situation to which you refer, this article doesn't reflect the actual facts of what happened, and the fact you aren't aware of this says much about the power of the mainstream media to misrepresent and lie directly to your face. 

But as it is, it sounds like you are talking about the Carlson case, and it sounds like you've been completely fooled by the media into thinking Carlson's lawyers argued that Fox isn't trustworthy. 

On the contrary, it sounds like your right wing programming has taken pretty firm hold.  I am referring to this and here was my statement: "Fox News' lawyers won't even argue for the trustworthiness of some of their programming."  Are you arguing that this statement is false, yes or no?  I thought that was well established.  I didn't say one word about Maddow, nothing I said is invalidated by 'but she did it too!', the comparison to her is utterly irrelevant, and technically the reference was to CNN whom she does not work for.  So what does the fact that you essentially invented an argument from me from one sentence say about the power of your mainstream media and its ability to fool your perceptions?

I'm not even sure what point you are making above, I think it's the differences in reporting of the two but your first link is an opinion piece so I'm not even following your summation of the argument I didn't make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Those a reasons for a reasonable apprehension. But, we're only weighing up a balance of probabilities based on MSM.

Personally I can't remember signing a quote as a retail customer.  I've done it in a loss adjustment type role.  By 2014 everyone I know was using the cloud for emails and multimedia.  What was actually on the MacBook in 2019?  Accessing the cloud via laptop seems outside the scope of the quoted work.

The laptop story smells like a way of presenting evidence to the court of public opinion.

15 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Because Hunter didn't pay for the work or return to collect it. After 90 days and several attempts at communication by the repair shop to try and get it sorted, the terms of the contract Hunter signed says that the laptop became the repair shop's property as payment for the job (because Hunter didn't pay for it himself). That was when the repair guy found the emails and sent it to the FBI. 

All fair and above board, really :tu: 

Hey Duck, I just re-read what you wrote and wanted to seek some clarification. Are you suggesting that the laptop is fake? It honestly sounds like you're trying to argue it's fake, and that's a ridiculous hypothesis to hold today. It was ridiculous 17 months ago too, but let's stick with how things are just now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Because Hunter didn't pay for the work or return to collect it. After 90 days and several attempts at communication by the repair shop to try and get it sorted, the terms of the contract Hunter signed says that the laptop became the repair shop's property as payment for the job (because Hunter didn't pay for it himself). That was when the repair guy found the emails and sent it to the FBI. 

All fair and above board, really :tu: 

Nope.  The hardware becomes the stores, not the userid and password to access The Cloud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Are you suggesting that the laptop is fake? It honestly sounds like you're trying to argue it's fake, and that's a ridiculous hypothesis to hold today.

Just curious since you know the details on this, what specifically has been found to not be fake?  I'll assume they've determined there's an actual laptop.  Have they determined that it was owned by Hunter?  Have they verified that all of the emails were sent by Hunter?  I was just wondering as I keep hearing and seeing it homogenized as 'the laptop is real' which can mean a lot of different things.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Hey Duck, I just re-read what you wrote and wanted to seek some clarification. Are you suggesting that the laptop is fake? It honestly sounds like you're trying to argue it's fake, and that's a ridiculous hypothesis to hold today. It was ridiculous 17 months ago too, but let's stick with how things are just now. 

The work order was for data recovery from the MacBooks.  Its unusual to store email on the PC.  Emails are stored on a server or cloud.

What was purportedly extaracted from the MacBook was nothing new except for porn.  Everything else Hunter Biden has admitted to or was already known.

Maintaining the provenance of electronic evidence is difficult enough for LEOs.  How does a corner store do any better?

This smells like a way of manufacturing a pathway to evidence.  Why is Giulliani involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laptop story, broken by the New York Post, was everything the Russia collusion story wasn’t: meticulous, transparent, on-the-record sourcing; contemporaneous, documentary evidence that doesn’t depend on a source’s after-the-fact recollection or spin.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-biden-laptop-matters-now-hunter-trump-election-2020-new-york-times-11647981178?mod=opinion_featst_pos3

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Nope.  The hardware becomes the stores, not the userid and password to access The Cloud.

I'd have to imagine that's why he's out of business.  You leave your devices, be it a phone, laptop, whatever with a repair shop, and you expect them not to go through it.  How many stories do we see about cellphone stores stealing customers naked photos?  Nope.  If the customer doesn't pick it up after 90 days, and it's yours, you wipe the hard drive, and resell it.  Only a creep goes through someone's files.  It doesn't matter if the files belong to a creep, you're both creeps.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

The laptop story, broken by the New York Post, was everything the Russia collusion story wasn’t: meticulous, transparent, on-the-record sourcing; contemporaneous, documentary evidence that doesn’t depend on a source’s after-the-fact recollection or spin.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-biden-laptop-matters-now-hunter-trump-election-2020-new-york-times-11647981178?mod=opinion_featst_pos3

 

OMG!  Impeach Hunter Biden!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.