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

52 minutes ago, the13bats said:

So ill go into it like i do claims of bigfoot,  ghosts or aliens and hope someone will catch me up.

Was is proven beyond doubt the laptop was hunters? - yes, 100% it's his laptop.

Was it proven hunter took said laptop to the blind tech? - Yes, that is not in doubt. 

Was it proven there was incriminating data on the computer? - Yes and no, depends on what you are looking for when you say "incriminating". There is video of him doing drugs with prostitutes on the hard drive. There are also emails dealing with Hunter's Ukrainian connections that smell of incrimination (to me and most conservatives, this is the material we find most interesting). But there's also a lot of misinformation out there. As far as I know there is no evidence that illegal pornography was on the laptop, which is a claim that has been floating around for a while now. 

Was it proven that incriminating data wasnt added by the blind tech or any other person who might have a vandetta against hunter? It has been "proven" insofar as no one is questioning the authenticity of the material on the laptop. The experts agree that the material from the laptop genuinely belongs to Hunter (the story was stopped because of "potentially hacked material", not "potentially fake material").

Was it legal for blind tech to make copies of data on a comp and hand it out to people? - Blind tech guy definitely had legal access to the material on the laptop (terms of contract stated Biden had given up claim to the laptop when he didn't return to collect it). Whether he illegally accessed cloud storage or some such, I don't know. I don't know what laws exist to stop people from accessing cloud storage, especially if their computer automatically logs them in and blind tech guy simply clicks "open". 

Either way, accessing cloud data has never been part of the reason why the laptop story was censored by Big Tech, so it' feels a bit of a red herring to use this as some kind of excuse. 

Why has this case for the most part vanished from the headlines? - Because the story broke in October 2020, the only reason it's back in the headlines today is that mainstream media are finally admitting it's legitimate. How many stories from October 2020 are still headlines today? 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Was is proven beyond doubt the laptop was hunters? - yes, 100% it's his laptop.

Was it proven hunter took said laptop to the blind tech? - Yes, that is not in doubt. 

Was it proven there was incriminating data on the computer? - Yes and no, depends on what you are looking for when you say "incriminating". There is video of him doing drugs with prostitutes on the hard drive. There are also emails dealing with Hunter's Ukrainian connections that smell of incrimination (to me and most conservatives, this is the material we find most interesting). But there's also a lot of misinformation out there. As far as I know there is no evidence that illegal pornography was on the laptop, which is a claim that has been floating around for a while now. 

Was it proven that incriminating data wasnt added by the blind tech or any other person who might have a vandetta against hunter? It has been "proven" insofar as no one is questioning the authenticity of the material on the laptop. The experts agree that the material from the laptop genuinely belongs to Hunter (the story was stopped because of "potentially hacked material", not "potentially fake material").

Was it legal for blind tech to make copies of data on a comp and hand it out to people? - Blind tech guy definitely had legal access to the material on the laptop (terms of contract stated Biden had given up claim to the laptop when he didn't return to collect it). Whether he illegally accessed cloud storage or some such, I don't know. I don't know what laws exist to stop people from accessing cloud storage, especially if their computer automatically logs them in and blind tech guy simply clicks "open". 

Either way, accessing cloud data has never been part of the reason why the laptop story was censored by Big Tech, so it' feels a bit of a red herring to use this as some kind of excuse. 

Why has this case for the most part vanished from the headlines? - Because the story broke in October 2020, the only reason it's back in the headlines today is that mainstream media are finally admitting it's legitimate. How many stories from October 2020 are still headlines today? 

This is not personal at all so do not take it as such.

You did what true believers of aliens, bigfoot,  ghosts etc do, you answered questions and neglected to provide any evidence to support your claims in short you simply posted your opinions and judging by other posts you have made you do have biases which must be considered.

So feel free to post links not opinion pieces that agree with your opinion but links that show unbiased actual proof to support your opinions which very well could be right or wrong at this moment.

Im just not a credulous type believer of "stories" or opinions i need that evidence to support claims.

Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The mainstream media rarely outright lies. They lie by omission, they lie by misdirection, they lie by reporting on different elements of a story, but they rarely tell an out and out falsehood! 

I'm not just accepting this story because the mainstream media is now agreeing with me. Honestly, I thought the mainstream media admitted months ago that it was a legit story, I guess I was wrong. The New York Times DID, however, attempt to bury the fact of this laptop in paragraph 24 of a 38 paragraph article, an article that is apparently only available to NYT subscribers. Knowing how many (or rather, how few) people actually read beyond a headline, it's obvious that they are burying this in an article hoping that no one sees it. 

Heck, the fact that we're even arguing whether the laptop is legit or not is an indictment on the media! 

So, the way the NYT reports it makes it true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

This is not personal at all so do not take it as such.

It's the internet, I have to take it personally :cry: 

:P 

j/k

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

You did what true believers of aliens, bigfoot,  ghosts etc do, you answered questions and neglected to provide any evidence to support your claims in short you simply posted your opinions and judging by other posts you have made you do have biases which must be considered.

So feel free to post links not opinion pieces that agree with your opinion but links that show unbiased actual proof to support your opinions which very well could be right or wrong at this moment.

Im just not a credulous type believer of "stories" or opinions i need that evidence to support claims.

Thanks.

 

Fact is that the mainstream media is ignoring it, so you won't get the sources you are asking for. The sources that I could provide are people that have covered it, but you would dismiss them, so there's no point wasting my time. I've just gotten home from work and my partner is looking disapprovingly at me spending time on UM when I've just got home and should be spending it with her ;) 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

So, the way the NYT reports it makes it true.

A bit of a simplistic distillation of my views, but essentially yes, at least in this instance. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

The backstory and provenance on this one is just riduculous but where theres smoke theres fire..maybe..

So ill go into it like i do claims of bigfoot,  ghosts or aliens and hope someone will catch me up.

And not to sound snide i see hunter as a spoiled entitled self centered embarrassment to his family junkie.

Was is proven beyond doubt the laptop was hunters?

Was it proven hunter took said laptop to the blind tech?

Was it proven there was incriminating data on the computer?

Was it proven that incriminating data wasnt added by the blind tech or any other person who might have a vandetta against hunter?

Was it legal for blind tech to make copies of data on a comp and hand it out to people?

Why has this case for the most part vanished from the headlines?

I think this falls under "impossible to prove without time travel". Unless a 100% trustworthy source saw him hand it over, its impossible to prove he did. At some point we have to assume. Assume because there's his pictures, his emails, his signature, his name used to drop it off... We have to see horses, rather then zebras.

Especially if the person under discussion does not say it was not his.

I believe there is laws the computer guy followed to be granted ownership, and thus access, due to lack of payment. Seems very standard.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It's the internet, I have to take it personally :cry: 

:P 

j/k

Fact is that the mainstream media is ignoring it, so you won't get the sources you are asking for. The sources that I could provide are people that have covered it, but you would dismiss them, so there's no point wasting my time. I've just gotten home from work and my partner is looking disapprovingly at me spending time on UM when I've just got home and should be spending it with her ;) 

as expected you have zero to back up what were your opinions not facts.

However,

I agree with your partner if she desires your attention jump on that. Never miss a moment like that.

 

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

43 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think this falls under "impossible to prove without time travel". Unless a 100% trustworthy source saw him hand it over, its impossible to prove he did. At some point we have to assume. Assume because there's his pictures, his emails, his signature, his name used to drop it off... We have to see horses, rather then zebras.

Especially if the person under discussion does not say it was not his.

I believe there is laws the computer guy followed to be granted ownership, and thus access, due to lack of payment. Seems very standard.

Nope, assuming is for the credulous or those that cant prove things, as i suspected they is a heck of a lot of smoke but no fire with this laptop case,  all the things on the comp could have been added, i will not assume they werent.

I will stick it on the back burner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

And yet it is a fact! It exists, and the emails exist.

Not disputing that a laptop exists, or its contents. Just the mechanism of discovery.
 

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

He's obfuscating. He's admitting its his without admitting its his

By claiming the emails were hacked or his laptop was stolen, he's conceeding the emails are genuine.

He just doesn't know how they got there.
 

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

They can. But they didn't. It's Hunter's laptop. If it wasn't he would have said so!

The FBI still have the laptop, so he's unable to even confirm if it was one he used which was subsequently stolen, at this point.
 

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You're stretching for any excuse to dismiss the story at this stage :tu: 

I haven't dismissed the story. I'm pointing out that you've misintepreted a single sentence within it, 24 paragraphs in.

I disntinctly remember quoting and bolding it for you, and everything.
 

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

When the tax return story broke, no one knew who the source was who leaked the tax returns. The media kept that to themselves as a protected source. Twitter could have made an executive decision that "until we know that this is not the result of hacked material, we are going to stop this story from being spread". The fact that they didn't but they did censor the laptop story that came out only a couple of weeks later says everything I need to know! 

Setting aside the myriad of reporters calling the NY Post's story into question, and the lack of the same for the NYT — last time I checked, Hunter Biden was a private citizen.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has continually made public interest exceptions for reporting leaks on elected figures.

One would be clearly illegal. The other, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Potay-to, Potah-to. It's a bastardisation of what the lawyers said. 

I think it's saying what the lawyers said using different words. Again, to rebut me simply show where the lawyers argues that Tucker is trustworthy; since you are narrowing in on exact verbiage used, stick to only what I stated too.

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The only reason you are questioning its authenticity is that the mainstream media has lied to you about it being questionable.

You still don't get it.  The media cannot lie to me unless I pay attention to the media.  Arguments based on you reading my mind and making predictions about alternate realities really aren't very compelling.  "The only reason you are not questioning its authenticity is because you are biased, probably by being so non-skeptical about your right-wing sources and applying different standards based on the political bent you infer from what you are reading." - you find that compelling too?  The actual reason I'm questioning the authenticity is because I'm a skeptic, the fact that Guilani is in any way involved in this should just compound that skepticism for anyone who hasn't been hoodwinked by the biased right-wing media.

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

So yes, even though you are not a "political junkie", you still have been fed enough information by the media to make a conclusion about a laptop, a conclusion which is completely and utterly false. So I will maintain my stance - you have been misled by the media and bought into the lies that they spread. 

I don't care what you 'maintain' I only concern myself with what you can back up.  So let's see if you can back this up at least:  quote me please (not 'infer'; these are your rules, see your comment above about 'bastardization' of what has actually been said) where I offered a 'completely and utterly false' conclusion about the laptop.  Hell, quote me where I offered any conclusion on the laptop.  Hopefully you comprehend that 'questioning' is the opposite of 'concluding'.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2022 at 8:41 PM, Tiggs said:

Not disputing that a laptop exists, or its contents. Just the mechanism of discovery.

The answer to that is simple - Hunter dropped it off at a repair shop in Delawere :tu: 

 

On 3/25/2022 at 8:41 PM, Tiggs said:

By claiming the emails were hacked or his laptop was stolen, he's conceeding the emails are genuine.

He just doesn't know how they got there.

He's obfuscating (yes, I'm repeating). The media did an amazing job with the "Russian disinformation" story, so that when Hunter was asked in the interview he had a readymade excuse - "MAYBE it's my laptop, MAYBE it's Russian disinfo".... it's a classic politician non-answer. How can you not see that? 

 

On 3/25/2022 at 8:41 PM, Tiggs said:

The FBI still have the laptop, so he's unable to even confirm if it was one he used which was subsequently stolen, at this point.
 

I haven't dismissed the story. I'm pointing out that you've misintepreted a single sentence within it, 24 paragraphs in.

I disntinctly remember quoting and bolding it for you, and everything.
 

Setting aside the myriad of reporters calling the NY Post's story into question, and the lack of the same for the NYT — last time I checked, Hunter Biden was a private citizen.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has continually made public interest exceptions for reporting leaks on elected figures.

One would be clearly illegal. The other, not so much.

That last point is a fair comment. Nevertheless, I will stand by my hypothesis - if the situations were reversed and it was someone with ties to Trump, the media wouldn't have cared if it was "hacked" or not, they'd have printed it, run with the story, and if necessary issued retractions after the fact. 

Yeah, it's an unfalsifiable opinion, because unless the exact same situation literally happens in reverse there are always differences to explain away situations, but it's an opinion I'll continue to maintain :tu: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/599803-issa-lays-groundwork-for-house-gop-probe-into-hunter-biden-laptop-story

Quote

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is spearheading an effort to investigate 2020 censorship and suppression of news coverage about the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop, previewing the kind of oversight House Republicans plan to engage in if they win back the House.

Issa on Wednesday sent record and document preservation requests to several tech company executives, former intelligence officials and top White House aides relating to the initial story in the New York Post about the laptop contents belonging to President Biden's son.

GOP leaders have already promised an avalanche of investigative and oversight activity if they are in the majority, including into Hunter Biden, the origins of the COVID-19 virus and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

So, appears Trumps not heading to prison anytime soon. I wonder if Biden might in 2025?

Poor leadership has lead to dissolving support for Joe, and the Democrats. They Republicans already appear to be gleefully waiting to gain power and try out some of Pelosi's tricks back onto her and her cronies.

We could even see impeachment. Lying about foreign affairs seems to be a high crime or misdemeanor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think it's saying what the lawyers said using different words. Again, to rebut me simply show where the lawyers argues that Tucker is trustworthy; since you are narrowing in on exact verbiage used, stick to only what I stated too.

Do you feel the same way about Maddow? Would you agree that her lawyers "wouldn't argue that she was trustworthy"? 

It's ok if that's what you believe, it would be consistent with your views on Tucker Carlson. 

 

20 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You still don't get it.  The media cannot lie to me unless I pay attention to the media.  Arguments based on you reading my mind and making predictions about alternate realities really aren't very compelling.  "The only reason you are not questioning its authenticity is because you are biased, probably by being so non-skeptical about your right-wing sources and applying different standards based on the political bent you infer from what you are reading." - you find that compelling too?  The actual reason I'm questioning the authenticity is because I'm a skeptic, the fact that Guilani is in any way involved in this should just compound that skepticism for anyone who hasn't been hoodwinked by the biased right-wing media.

I don't care what you 'maintain' I only concern myself with what you can back up.  So let's see if you can back this up at least:  quote me please (not 'infer'; these are your rules, see your comment above about 'bastardization' of what has actually been said) where I offered a 'completely and utterly false' conclusion about the laptop.  Hell, quote me where I offered any conclusion on the laptop.  Hopefully you comprehend that 'questioning' is the opposite of 'concluding'.  

Yet you sit here repeating media lies in your justification as to why you don't pay attention to the media! If you applied the level of scepticism you are using now to literally any other avenue of study, the conclusion would be that nothing could ever be concluded because technically 99.99999999% likely by necessity means there's a 0.0000001% chance it's not. Unless someone has CCTV footage of Hunter Biden dropping his laptop off, you're just going to have to accept that there was a work order at the shop with Hunter Biden's signature on it, and that no one (not Hunter, or the FBI) has cast doubt on that signature. Does that mean there's 0% chance it's not forged? Probably not, which technically means you can be as sceptical and questioning as you want. But the strong balance of probabilities indicates that it's real. 

You're also mischaracterising my trust for media. While I do "trust" right wing sources more than left-wing sources (we all have our biases, that's unavoidable), I do not accept them uncritically. Taking the Maddow story above as an example, if I trusted the right wing media like Glenn Greenwald's substack, then I'd be sitting here saying that MSNBC lawyers have argued that Rachel Maddow is untrustworthy (or at least they have not argued that she is trustworthy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
26 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The answer to that is simple - Hunter dropped it off at a repair shop in Delawere :tu: 

In your opinion. The NYT isn't so sure.
 

26 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

He's obfuscating (yes, I'm repeating). The media did an amazing job with the "Russian disinformation" story, so that when Hunter was asked in the interview he had a readymade excuse - "MAYBE it's my laptop, MAYBE it's Russian disinfo".... it's a classic politician non-answer. How can you not see that? 

Probably because he didn't claim it was Russian disinfo.

Again — by claiming the emails were hacked or his laptop was stolen, he's conceeding the emails are genuine.

He just doesn't know how they got there.
 

26 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That last point is a fair comment. Nevertheless, I will stand by my hypothesis - if the situations were reversed and it was someone with ties to Trump, the media wouldn't have cared if it was "hacked" or not, they'd have printed it, run with the story, and if necessary issued retractions after the fact. 

Yeah, it's an unfalsifiable opinion, because unless the exact same situation literally happens in reverse there are always differences to explain away situations, but it's an opinion I'll continue to maintain :tu: 

Color me surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

In your opinion. The NYT isn't so sure.

The NYT is sure, they just aren't willing to admit it. This forum is known for extreme scepticism, but it takes scepticism to an extreme new height to not accept the basic facts in this case. Hunter has never denied the possibility of the repair shop, his signature is on the work order, and that signature has been verified. As said to LG above, that doesn't guarantee it's not a forgery, but it does swing probabilities strongly in that direction.  

 

12 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Probably because he didn't claim it was Russian disinfo.

"There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me, it could be that I was hacked, it could be that it was Russian Intelligence". Note that he never denied the possibility of leaving it at a repair shop. I hope we aren't going to have an argument about the semantics of "Russian Intelligence" vs "Russian disinfo"... whether "intelligence" or "disinformation", the key intended takeaway is that it was a ploy by Russia intended to interfere in the US election. Whatever the case, there were so many "could's" in that wishy-washy answer he may as well have not answered the question at all!

Linking to this article, just because it has the interview in a video, I have no idea what's in the article!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Do you feel the same way about Maddow? Would you agree that her lawyers "wouldn't argue that she was trustworthy"? 

It's ok if that's what you believe, it would be consistent with your views on Tucker Carlson. 

 

Yet you sit here repeating media lies in your justification as to why you don't pay attention to the media! If you applied the level of scepticism you are using now to literally any other avenue of study, the conclusion would be that nothing could ever be concluded because technically 99.99999999% likely by necessity means there's a 0.0000001% chance it's not. Unless someone has CCTV footage of Hunter Biden dropping his laptop off, you're just going to have to accept that there was a work order at the shop with Hunter Biden's signature on it, and that no one (not Hunter, or the FBI) has cast doubt on that signature. Does that mean there's 0% chance it's not forged? Probably not, which technically means you can be as sceptical and questioning as you want. But the strong balance of probabilities indicates that it's real. 

You're also mischaracterising my trust for media. While I do "trust" right wing sources more than left-wing sources (we all have our biases, that's unavoidable), I do not accept them uncritically. Taking the Maddow story above as an example, if I trusted the right wing media like Glenn Greenwald's substack, then I'd be sitting here saying that MSNBC lawyers have argued that Rachel Maddow is untrustworthy (or at least they have not argued that she is trustworthy).

Actually there was doubt about the signature.  I've read an FBI expert says it's authentic; but, layman analysis indicates it might not have been accepted for a mail in ballot.

Mac Isaac says he worried for his safety but didn't think of keeping CCTV within the few months hid system allows.

When asked how he accessed emails on the 2016 model laptop, Mac Isaac offers "no comment." Nevertheless, email from 2013 and 2014 are given to Giulliani.

What's in the email? Joe Biden was in a party of 12 in Cafe Milano; and, "The Big Guy" rejected a share of equity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The NYT is sure, they just aren't willing to admit it.

And you intend to evidence that claim, how, exactly?
 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

This forum is known for extreme scepticism, but it takes scepticism to an extreme new height to not accept the basic facts in this case.

I prefer actual evidence. Like the specific wording the NYT used, for example.
 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

"There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me, it could be that I was hacked, it could be that it was Russian Intelligence". Note that he never denied the possibility of leaving it at a repair shop. 

Maybe you could walk us through how either of the possible options he stated are viable in a world where he left it at a repair shop.
 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I hope we aren't going to have an argument about the semantics of "Russian Intelligence" vs "Russian disinfo"... whether "intelligence" or "disinformation", the key intended takeaway is that it was a ploy by Russia intended to interfere in the US election.

When he references Russian Intelligence, he's referring to the nation state that may have hacked him.

And, yes -- the key intended takeaway is that he doesn't know how it got to the repair shop, and that it's a ploy by Russia/someone to interfere in the US election.

Which is why it's too important to just be handwaved away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does make me wonder.  What are the legal ways that someone can get access to someone else's laptop without a warrant?  The only possible way is abandonment at a repair shop right?  So if I stole a laptop, the only way to legally and publicly dump the information is to run it through a computer repairman- preferably one that is blind and can't see me, right? 

Or am I just being too suspicious? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yet you sit here repeating media lies in your justification as to why you don't pay attention to the media!

Let's deal with one lie of yours at a time, why did you avoid my straightforward question with all this hand-waving?  Here it is again:  quote me where I offered a completely and utterly false conclusion concerning the laptop, as you claimed.  Bonus points if you can find a quote of your most recent lie above where I provided any justification or comment about 'why' I don't pay attention to the media, which is not something I actually said anyway.

Here, let me do your work for you and maybe jog your memory.  Except for an initial question about Guiliani 'sitting on' the laptop, you and I have been discussing mainly your biased misuse of the term 'the media', which is not-so-coincidentally totally consistent with how many right-wing media outlets misuse it.  That evolved also into comparisons of Tucker and Maddow, etc.  Then, noting and acknowledging that we were not actually on topic, I posted this:

Quote

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.

And since then I've tried in vain to get you to stop misrepresenting me.  Where is there any 'conclusion' above, where is the utter falseness?  Do you see the question marks above, does it need explaining how they are essentially the opposite of concluding anything?

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

If you applied the level of scepticism you are using now to literally any other avenue of study, the conclusion would be that nothing could ever be concluded because technically 99.99999999% likely by necessity means there's a 0.0000001% chance it's not.

Ha sorry, you've given me very little indication that you understand skepticism or at least have much experience in practicing it, you and I have had several conversations in the past about your former Christian beliefs after all and our particular conversation here isn't helping.  And my god it boggles that you were just recently posting how you just didn't understand why anyone might think you are on the far right; that's some serious lack of self-awareness.    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

I have been trying to get my head around the significance of this story and as yet I cannot seem to grasp any actual statement of what illegal act this laptop reveals and how it relates in any way to Biden the President.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Br Cornelius said:

I have been trying to get my head around the significance of this story and as yet I cannot seem to grasp any actual statement of what illegal act this laptop reveals and how it relates in any way to Biden the President.

Br Cornelius

There was an email on it that said the "The Big Guy" would get 10% of the money on a deal and people are claiming "The Big Guy" is Joe Biden. Hunter Biden business partner says 'big guy' email about China deal is 'genuine' and refers to Joe Biden | Washington Examiner

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

why did you avoid my straightforward question with all this hand-waving?

On the matter of avoiding straightforward questions....  Do you feel the same way about Maddow? Would you agree that her lawyers "wouldn't argue that she was trustworthy"? 

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

it boggles that you were just recently posting how you just didn't understand why anyone might think you are on the far right; that's some serious lack of self-awareness.

Do you have a quote where I said "I don't understand why anyone might think I am far right"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

This does make me wonder.  What are the legal ways that someone can get access to someone else's laptop without a warrant?  The only possible way is abandonment at a repair shop right?  So if I stole a laptop, the only way to legally and publicly dump the information is to run it through a computer repairman- preferably one that is blind and can't see me, right? 

Or am I just being too suspicious? 

Mac Isaac, himself, said the hardware would be recycled.

I doubt the software licences transfer.

It still questionable how a 2013/14 email is accessed on a 2016 model Macbook.

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

There was an email on it that said the "The Big Guy" would get 10% of the money on a deal and people are claiming "The Big Guy" is Joe Biden. Hunter Biden business partner says 'big guy' email about China deal is 'genuine' and refers to Joe Biden | Washington Examiner

 

In subsequent emails "The Big Guy" says no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tiggs said:

And you intend to evidence that claim, how, exactly?

Does expert analysis of the signature count as evidence? 

 

6 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Maybe you could walk us through how either of the possible options he stated are viable in a world where he left it at a repair shop.

They don't. He was handwaving! 

 

6 hours ago, Tiggs said:

When he references Russian Intelligence, he's referring to the nation state that may have hacked him.

And, yes -- the key intended takeaway is that he doesn't know how it got to the repair shop, and that it's a ploy by Russia/someone to interfere in the US election.

Which is why it's too important to just be handwaved away.

But that is bullcrap! There is no Russian intelligence operation. There is nothing to be handwaved away and you're sitting here as if a Russian ploy is still a viable option. It was a ridiculous notion in 2020 and it's ridiculous still today. 

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.