Well, this sounds bad … But this .. sounds like multiple phone calls and conversations I’ve been in when I start saying shit that wasn’t entirely correct, but could be and would be misconstrued. Regardless of all that, Let’s say Joe and Hunter did exchange emails regarding things happening at that company. I am absolutely certain, with my (rollseyes) vast experience in corporate culture, that it was Hunter’s company that shut down anything that would have become public.
Not to go too off-topic, but to accept the story at the link as gospel truth, it only says that someone at the FBI confirmed to Twitter officials that the laptop is indeed Hunter Biden's. That doesn't mean: 1. All the files on it are the unadulterated files of Hunter Biden, with none of the files having been planted or manipulated by Russian agents, Republicans, or others 2. Any of the files show any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden that go beyond Hunter liking drugs and showing himself nekked (and the Post kindly includes a censored pic of nekked Hunter to illustrate the story but none of the possible documents that show Hunter was involved in anything illegal 3. Any of the files on it show any connection between Joe Biden and any of the wrongdoing Hunter may have done. Even if I were to spot you that there was some sort of smoking gun material on the laptop that for whatever reason the Republicans and the FBI hadn't uncovered or disseminated despite having it in their possession for a year before the election and now like another 3, that still doesn't mean that the government did anything more than talk to try to get Twitter or anyone else to not disseminate information about the laptop or on the laptop. As has been pointed out, Joe Biden had no control over or sway with the FBI prior to his election, so any actions the FBI may have taken to ask social media or anyone else to not publish information about the laptop was not at Biden's behest.
And this is the same FBI that looked at "her e-mails" and helped lose the election for Hillary by making it look like the smoke had fire, instead of the nothing burger it was. But yeah, they all swapped with their mirror universe selves in the transporter, and swung partisan Democrat.
Yeah, Joe Biden hadn't been VP or a prominent senator or nothing like that, he's just Joe Blow from Scranton Pennsylvania that had no pull in Washington whatsoever.
No it's the same FBI. that didn't charge her even though there very much was a smoking gun and if it were Trump he would be indicted for it and you fucking know it, partisan hack.
I'm from Missouri. Show me the evidence that a single FBI agent, let alone someone with high enough pull to actually make decisions about the laptop and the investigation into Hunter Biden, during the Trump administration had their opinion swayed about what to do by the abstract notion of Joe Biden having been powerful or by the possibility that he might run for president, or that Joe Biden or anyone connected to him tried to have the investigation into Hunter, his laptop or anything else kiboshed prior to 2021.
Remember in that one debate when Trump called out the laptop and Biden said that 50 people in the intelligence community assured him it was Russian disinformation, who do you think those fifty people were?
I actually don't remember that moment. But taking it as a given that he said that he was told this by people in the intelligence community and that he was in fact told this, there's no inherent reason to believe that any of the people that told him this were people with any direct knowledge of the ins and outs of the case, let alone that they were either acting on his requests or in the hopes of currying favor for him.
You might remember that one of the conspiracy theories that was going around was that Hillary and other Democrats were sexually abusing minors in the basement of a pizza parlor. If not, here's a refresher... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory It's relevant because it shows that people will spout any level of BS about Dems without proof and yet people will believe it. And yet when there exists audio or video of Trump saying and doing the things he is accused of (for instance, showing classified documents to people who don't have a clearance and admitting that he shouldn't be, pressuring the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him" non-existent votes, having his lawyers state falsely that he had given up all the classified documents in his possession), when Trump's co-conspirators plead guilty and/or admit that he has done the things that he is accused of, when there is a FBI raid on Trump's home that shows that he has done the thing he has done excuses of, when grand juries look at the evidence presented to them and decide to indict Trump for his alleged criming in four different cases, Trump supporters and others seem to stick their head in the sand about whether those things are true or not.
So all the former Obama people like John Brennan and the like going on cable news and saying that it was Russian disinformation, they weren't familiar with the case, they didn't know that the FBI had the laptop, you expect me to believe that?
I don't necessarily think that people don't believe it, I think the see a two tiered justice system that when Democrats do illegal shit, they don't go to jail and aren't charged so they just see it as blatant hypocrisy so they don't care about Trump's alleged crimes. They also see that Trump is being demonized before even going to trial and they think that many of these cases as a partisan attempt to "get" him and they know that these trials are going to be in places with unfavorable juries and unfavorable judges so it looks like a witch hunt to them. People also see the liberal media taking a lot the stuff he says out of context and purposely pushing a narrative to influence their audiences.
Please list 1 (one) of the things Trump is being charged with that you believe there is proof of a Democrat having done without being charged. Note that this requires them to be equivalent, ie for the documents you should show someone who took, hid, improperly stored, and actively lied to investigators to prevent their recovery. If you try to draw false equivalence it will be taken as an admission that you've got nothing.
Joe Biden taking documents and storing them in his garage and various other places and Hillary Clinton destroying her server.
Anthony Weiner did. "But it was a slap on the wrist! ". I agree. But you didn't specify that, so as Too Literal Genie, I destroy you.
I can't speak for the various people who might have gone on CNN or wherever. I also can't speak to whether or not it in fact was or wasn't Russian disinformation. All that seems to have been verified was that the laptop in question was indeed owned by Hunter Biden. That does not mean that between when the repair person first said that Hunter had abandoned it and now that there were not shenanigans afoot So the fact that various people gave the opinion that it was Russian disinformation does not signify anything meaningful about whether anyone from the FBI was doing Biden's bidding in not going after Hunter's laptop, which was the point of this whole thread. Especially if (or more likely since) none of those people who went on CNN claimed to have direct knowledge from the FBI investigators who had any meaningful knowledge of the laptop's contents. TLDR: It doesn't matter to me so much what you might believe about Hunter's laptop. What matters to me is what can be proven. And four years after this issue has first come to light as a possible subject, no one with firsthand knowledge or who can reasonably claim firsthand knowledge of it has managed to point to specific items on Hunter's laptop that incriminate Hunter in anything more than liking hot women, using drugs, having guns and taking nude selfies. Let alone direct evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden. If there was such evidence, it certainly would have been made public by now no matter how much any Deep State suppression might have existed, because the same sources that generously doles out Hunter Biden dick pics would have also been able to pinpoint Hunter Biden/Joe Biden law-breaking.
We've gone over this before, but 1. There's no equivalence between Joe Biden's retention of documents and voluntarily turning them over and Trump's willful obstruction and campaign to retain documents that he knew he had. There is no evidence in the public eye that Biden knew that he retained the classified documents, that Biden showed any of the classified documents he retained to anyone not authorized to see them, that Biden didn't return the documents as soon as he realized that he had them. He is under investigation as to how he retained these documents. I will say right here and now, if that investigation comes up with credible evidence that Biden knew he retained the classified documents and deliberately held onto them for some reason, or deliberately showed the classified documents to someone other than his lawyer, I hope he is charged with any applicable crimes, and I have no doubt he will be. By contrast, Trump's various actions leave an unmistakable inference that he knew he had the documents, he knew he was supposed to give them back, and he didn't want to. That's why he was charged with a crime and Joe Biden (and Mike Pence, and probably others who retained classified documents but voluntarily returned them) are not charged with crimes. 2. As Joe Comey said and as various legal experts said, they would never have been able to show that Hilary had a criminal mindset when she deleted e-mails and got rid of her server. Here's a link to the statement. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-rele...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system It should be pointed out that various people in Trumpworld were equally guilty of bad e-mail management, using unsecure e-mail addresses through which almost certainly classified information passed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...15d1e0-e7a1-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html One can, as the story points out, quibble about differences between what Ivanka did vs Hillary did, but then as far as I know, there wasn't the subsequent massive investigation into either her e-mail practices or larger e-mail practices in the Trump Administration, what with the far more serious criming to look into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes Here's a list of politicians who have been convicted of crimes. You'll note that there are a whole bunch of Democrats on that list.
BTW, mods, can you put all this laptop stuff in the Hunter Biden thread or its own "FF is tired of getting owned about Roe so he went out of his way to get owned about Hunter's laptop again" thread?
"Democrats" isn't the word I'd put there. Would the same people agree with that statement if "Democrats" were replaced with "rich people"? Is this your opinion as well? If it is, do you understand that Trump was essentially going out of his way to demonize himself for 4+ years before the trial, continually attacking people and doing things one associates with incompetence? What would it take to be a favorable jury or a favorable judge? What phrases come to mind? Just quietly answer that question for yourself and think about what those phrases might imply. Gosh, the media never does that to anybody of any political stripe.
There should have been no government intervention. Putting a thumb on the scale like that is unacceptable.
If you have evidence that there was government intervention re: getting Twitter to not publish the story, please link to it so we can talk sensibly about what that intervention was. As near as I can tell from news stories like the one linked below, Twitter execs have said that they made the call to not allow links to the one story fearing it might be Russian disinformation on their own. https://apnews.com/article/technolo...rty-business-6e34ad121a1e52892b782b0b7c0e59c3
I actually haven't seen the evidence. The article linked above said that the Twitter executives decided on their own to not allow links to the Post story and within 24 hours reversed that decision. There is no mention of anyone from the FBI telling them to suppress the story. From the link I posted above: So somebody is denying it -- Twitter and the FBI. Of course, both could be lying/mistaken/etc. Which is why i asked for evidence that the FBI strongarmed Twitter in this particular way to support the case that Twitter made this decision because of government pressure. We'll see if you can provide some that this House panel couldn't come up with. It should be a fairly simple matter to post a link to someone from Twitter saying that they were leaned on by the FBI to suppress this story or something similar, if there were evidence of it. After all, Elon gave some level of access to Twitter executives e-mails to people to expressly show that previously Twitter execs were woke.
