That’s the Daily Fail–not a credible source. And note they’re just reporting what the FBI said–and at that time the FBI was under right wing control.
Note that nothing came of it because there wasn’t anything to it.
It’s the contradictions in the repair story that makes me not believe it.
Obviously we disagree. I think the Daily Mail is more credible than the American left-wing media. We know the US left-media ignored the story but that does not mean it is not true.
The leadership of the FBI is the same now as it was during the investigation. Christopher Wray is still the director of the FBI.
Do you have any evidence that the laptop is Russian disinformation?
2 Likes
Sure leaving your laptop to be repaired and then never getting it might not make sense to you or me, but we haven’t done nearly as much hookers and blow as Hunter. I think it’s safe to say his priorities and thought processes are very very different.
5 Likes
Then you must have a preconceived notion of what you want to believe, giving you a bias in what you consider “true”. If the contradictions make you not believe it, you should be asking for more information so that you can figure out what to believe. Not automatically latching onto the opposing position (and ignoring various other contradictions along the way).
I still allow for the possibility that the whole repair store story was planted by Democrats/the Biden campaign - who knew the laptop was going to come out, and wanted to damage the credibility of it’s contents by rolling it into a rather outlandish backstory. Probably not the most likely possibility, but the only thing I know for certain is that Biden could’ve quickly put the whole matter to rest with a simple three word statement. “It’s not his”, or “It isnt real.” And he didnt.
6 Likes
Are you kidding me? Do you really think if Biden said something like that, it would put the matter to rest?
3 Likes
And we know that all computer guys are good, fair and balanced. 
ETA0: and can never have the wool pulled over their eyes, even when they want it.
ETA1: I’m a zebra. I know 1’s and 0’s.
1 Like
Yes, it would matter. Because the question would then be whether you trust Biden or not. And while it’s become really popular to decide if things are true merely based solely on who is saying it, I prefer to look at what is being said and decide if it is true regardless of the source (even the biggest lunatics can get it right occasionally). As it was, and still is, the only choice has been between believing there’s a dirty laptop, or believing there’s a dirty laptop from a Russian source.
You can focus your tunnel vision on “RUSSIA!” all you want, that’s your choice. I prefer to focus on the laptop, since that is what is potentially damning. And by all accounts there does seem to be a tangible device or harddrive at the center of the story, and I’ve been given zero alterntives to even consider.
3 Likes
Nothing about being good, fair and balanced. Rather, knowing that if I were repairing a computer it would be completely inappropriate to go snooping through the e-mail, nor would I have the slightest reason to do so.
I also know an unclaimed machine wouldn’t be sitting around for years.
Here’s an article pointing out a bunch of problems with the story:
My education is in engineering, and have worked with engineers/computer types my entire adult life. There is just as much dishonesty among computer types than, say, marketing types. And yes, it’s inappropriate to be dishonest.
3 Likes
No one cares about the story. They care about where the story leads, the so-called data cache.
I cant believe anyone would chose to decide whether to consider this cache based solely on how they came to know it, rather than considering it based on if the cache is real. The backstory may be poppycock, but it does involve tangible evidence of some sort. And the validity of that evidence is what is important, not the story that came along with it.
Your entire defense of this is just following the rules of evidence in court - you are throwing out the bloody knife and letting the killer go free, just because the cops found it in the basement but only had a search warrant for the backyard. The truth doesnt care how it surfaced, the truth cares about who’s it is and if it is in fact the murder weapon. And trying to hide behind the assertion that “you weren’t supposed to see it in the first place, so it must be ignored” only perpetuates the perception that there really is something being hidden.
4 Likes
That is a broken link. From the little excerpt that appears, it seems it is from soon after the story broke. As the article I presented to you from a few months later showed, the FBI examined the laptop and decided that it was legitimate.
2 Likes
Sure, it would only add more questions, not “quickly put the whole matter to rest” as you said.
And in addition, as that old TechCrunch article alludes to, computer repair people are often obligated to report the FBI any underage pornography they discover, which very well could apply (or appear to apply) to Hunter’s video sexapades. So the repair guy could well have been following the law as they understood it and handed it over.
Of course the friendly FBI slow walked the investigation of Hunter, even once they had substantial incriminating evidence of numerous crimes, until well after the election was over.
3 Likes
I wasn’t talking about honesty, I was talking about having an idea of what the repair guy would actually be doing. And that doesn’t include pawing through the e-mails. That’s not something he would have seen unless he was doing some very improper snooping.
The link works fine and xerty obviously read it. It is meterwalled, though, perhaps it’s not letting you in.
The information recovered from the laptop has no value as evidence as it’s providence is severely tainted. The supposed scenario makes no sense, but it does make a lot of sense if it was used as a way to plant information–and there’s no way to know if it’s been tampered with.
provenance?
Says you, only because you disbelieve or distrust the source. But that’s not a decision for you, it’s a decision for a jury. Even if you don’t think the laptop was his possession or you question the chain of custody, all fine things to argue at a trial, it’s still got lots of video of him engaging in likely illegal activity.
Do you think the videos of Hunter with young prostitutes taking drugs and having sex were fabricated entirely? You’ve seen all the crazy stuff this guy does and doesn’t deny. Which is more likely - a foreign espionage agency creates videos from whole cloth to look like him, or they just offer him free drugs and floozies when he’s sleazing it up abroad doing his foreign influence peddling and record the obvious results?
5 Likes
No prosecutor is going to try to use evidence like that–give the jury garbage and expect an acquittal. If the judge even allows you to do it.