I agree to an extent, and that's why I said right now several times its a he said she said thing. At the same time the stories back each other up and there is a lot of corroborating evidence in it.
I agree to an extent, and that's why I said right now several times its a he said she said thing. At the same time the stories back each other up and there is a lot of corroborating evidence in it.Pfft penalty of perjury under a R controlled house means nothing. All the DOJ lawyers that will disbarred if they falsified the court documents they filed holds more credibility
I didn't make shit up. I remembered roughly what it said and digging through a pdf that's not searchable is fun. One was hired in 09' the other in 10' so yes they both had 10+ years of experience.I assumed you were being a condescending dick with that first statement, but in a weird twist of apparent honesty you're just admitting you struggled with it? At least based on you admitting you just made shit up because you couldn't be bothered to get basic fucking facts sorted, as you did with the very next sentence. That's exactly what they said yet you haven't been able to support that with any actual evidence other than you apparently know jack shit about this stuff and so you're taking lack of evidence as evidence of conspiracy to protect Hunter Biden?
Everyone here keeps tossing this in about the entire laptop conspiracy. Asking questions not related to what I initially posted. Then when I'm trying to answer those questions more come in think I'm trying to argue all sorts of shit I haven'tGee, I can't fathom why people won't partake in your bad faith arguments, and no wonder you're desperate to defend such behavior on the part of Republican operatives. Apparently your brain operates in a similar manner, which is to say, completely fucked, where you think just making shit up when you could actually get specific facts, is totally a-ok.
And additional insults. How original.Goddamn you really are a special kind of piece of shit. Unfortunately that special kind of piece of shit is far too common these days.
Since you are so bent on believing the fictional, 300 page transcript from the testimony of these Whistleblowers and such, can you explain something to me, as I believe you have the background to understand the question. You know, since you have been a member of this forum since 2007, which demonstrates you must have some knowledge about computers and such, as this is pretty much a computer geek forum, which you most likely are.When that logic with no proof is used as a basic to put "disinformation" stickers on anything related to it and a poll afterwards says that it affected the actual vote I tend to take it seriously.
I stated every time that it's my opinion. It's definitely a FACT that the whistleblowers wrote it, under penalty of perjury.
He didn't write those words. THE WHISTLEBLOWERS did. They did under penalty of perjury. If you think they're lying that's your decision to make but stop putting more adding more BS that I didn't say.
Where have I said I believe Trump? If you're going to put words in my mouth prove it. I think he's a narcissistic habitual lying asshole. Doesn't mean that every single thing you don't agree with is bullshit thought. I hate having to decide that I don't want to vote for either of these people and then have someone like you tell me it's my fault he did all that shit because I didn't vote against him and keep him out of office. Maybe bring a candidate that's worth voting for.
I specifically said in the post that I didn't read them. They were the only 2 that I haven't. You didn't read that and then blame me for your inability to read. You keep bringing Joe Biden into this and I keep telling Hunter and the treatment he's gotten is my big complaint. More words in my mouth that you're just making assumptions about.
You're the one that hasn't read half of what I said and added lots of nonsense claiming I said things I didn't so I don't really see that as a loss.
The FBI “verified” the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop in November 2019 and a federal computer expert assessed “it was not manipulated in any way,” IRS supervisory agent Gary Shapley told Congress in explosive testimony released Thursday.
But behind the scenes, “when the FBI took possession of the device in December 2019, they notified the IRS that it likely contained evidence of tax crimes,” Shapley said.
I hadn't seen that story, but it's definitely based off the testimony statements of the witnesses.Can you explain how the FBI verified authenticity and that and assessed it wasn't manipulated in any why in November of 2019, when the FBI did not have possession of such laptop until the following month, in December of 2019? How are they able to have the laptops ownership authenticated, it's contents verified and authenticated, the moment they took possession of it? Don't you need possession and time, before you can factually verify anything? Or do you believe the FBI did their investigation of authenticity working a day or two, in a blind man's computer repair shop?
It took months according to the timeline. And yes like before it obviously wasn't in Hunter's or the FBI's hands at the computer shop.Point: As a computer "geek" (you can use enthusiast here if you chose) like yourself, me, and others, that have been on this site for a 15+ years, that should have thrown a huge red flag about such testimony. Specially if you have an inkling of how all law enforcement agencies conducts investigations of evidence. All that is done off site of the law enforcement agency (FB I in this case) is the gathering of evidence, Specially where computer hardware is concerned. Which is where a chain of custody starts, and only way possible to enforce a chain of custody, to ensure no tampering of evidence is done beyond that point. Evidence isn't processed or verified/authenticated until it is taken back to the FBI agency investigation lab. Which means NON of that could have been done until AFTER they took possession of the laptop.
Did you state this without reading the timeline and associated questions they answered? I don't think the FBI is going to release all their normal procedures on it, or even to the IRS agents. But if you didn't read my links and are asking these questions I highly suggest you read the link I provided before from exhibit 6 through the end of that line of questions.Knowing that those claimed events about verification/authentication timeline of the laptop itself are not factual, which are basic simple facts that any computer "geek" should recognize as fiction. Notice I said computer "geek", and not the general population that generally have little knowledge about computers beyond the basics. so it's expected they wouldn't catch that. As a computer "geek", How can anything in that 300 page transcript be considered anything other than fiction by you or any other person on this site if they can't get a basic factual timeline right about the key piece of equipment the evidence came from? Yet, somehow you want us to believe the rest of the more difficult testimony is accurate and truthful. You don't even have to take into consideration of all the other facts about the testimony that have already been mentioned, and the participants in Congress, conducting the investigation to see that the 300 page transcript is nothing but embellished bullshit. There's a reason the testimony was behind closed doors and only for the ears of the GOP committee. So nobody can call out the bullshit.
Next up, he didn't actually say Joe was guilty, just its super suspicious and he's just asking questions!
What a clownfucking dipshit. I'm calling it, this is a returned banned member. I forget his username (something noah?), but acted the exact same way. Walls of nonsense where he'd admit he didn't even read the shit he was using as evidence (and often typically it would refute whatever claim the dumbfuck was making) and just made shit up based on his personal feelings, and when called out on it would then just try to spiral everything into a nonsense mountain where he'd just put so much nonsense out and then whine that people were being mean/unfair to for not debating his nonsense, despite his own self-admitted dishonesty.
You still haven't answered the following so I'll try for the 4th time...The problem is the FBI verified it was his and then no one bothered to tell everyone else of that fact. In fact certain people decided to put out information that the entire thing was a Hoax when many of them knew that it wasn't. That doesn't sound suspicious either.
Does it makes any sense to you that according to the time line, the FBI used the very blind repair man to verify if the lap top was Hunter Bidens, as well as used that same blind repair man to determine if it contained any incriminating evidence? Specially when it goes against nearly every protocol in place for handing and evaluating such evidence?I hadn't seen that story, but it's definitely based off the testimony statements of the witnesses.
That's a fair question. And I discussed it pages ago. And made links to it here from another post no one bothered to read it so far to my knowledge.
"For the record there's an exhibit 6 in the transcript which basically details the laptop, hard drive, and external hard drive timeline and a discussion after that. pg 119-127 of the pdf
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Whistleblower-1-Transcript_Redacted.pdf
It's later talked about below the timeline that "sportsman" is in fact Hunter Biden. Information mentioning he was in that area the day it was dropped off due to financial records, other intelligence. His phone number matched at the time the repair shop said he called, etc... I should have cut and paste the images from that exhibit I suppose. So I'll spend the time converting to .jpg so that part is here. Line 43e in particular deals with what they thought about the contents of the computer.
I was a geek then and for a long time prior but I don't really tinker with hardware as much these days and don't work in IT. I don't know the exact procedures to do that and I agree there might be some doubt in the back of their heads that their could be misinformation in there. At the same time they had access to the iCloud to verify any information that was backed up. If the data there hadn't been changed since before it was dropped off you can make an assumption that it was all from Hunter Biden. The computer repairman could have changed things after the it was dropped off but the iCloud would show the changes and the time they changed (I assume). If it was after it was dropped off obviously it's been added. There would be no access for an outside source to play with the iCloud server logs. They also mention that they obtained warrants for the 3rd party iCloud data for the investigations they were doing. I can only assume by their assertions if the FBI found any "funny business" ie differences or forensic changes while in the repairman's possession they would have been told since they were using it. Basically what 43e inferred, there were ways to confirm the data using other means than just the data on the drive as well as forensics on it.
It took months according to the timeline. And yes like before it obviously wasn't in Hunter's or the FBI's hands at the computer shop.
Did you state this without reading the timeline and associated questions they answered? I don't think the FBI is going to release all their normal procedures on it, or even to the IRS agents. But if you didn't read my links and are asking these questions I highly suggest you read the link I provided before from exhibit 6 through the end of that line of questions.
I do agree that there is obviously a timeframe that it was out of Hunter's and the FBI's hands so there was no full chain of custody. However any data that backed up to the iCloud is verifiable if you compare them, not that it really matters then of course because it's the same data.
Part of that timeline was why the investigation was started in the first place. Things like tax returns being filed years late with massive deductions that they weren't allowed to interview others about aren't from the laptop. Tax evasion that occurred and was mentioned in emails from years prior to when it was dropped off.
If you decided that the iCloud account was hacked as well and all that data is potentially tainted which is what a couple have suggested then sure if that's true there is obviously no way to have any idea who put it on there. I mean you wouldn't have IP logs showing it being messed around with from different locations but nah, it must have been hacked too.
That dog will never hunt.Quit being the Victim and start being Honest.
It's funny that somehow it's our fault that we don't listen to their so-called evidence. They present a steaming pile of crap, then complain when we don't eat it.
I'm more than happy to debate, which is why I took the time to actually read the articles and see what they say. But when the guy spouting baseless conspiracy theories didn't even read the articles, how is anyone supposed to take him seriously?
Unlike those on the right, the more liberal leaning members of this forum are more than happy to debate, and if the proof warrants it, condemn any politician for wrong doings regardless of political affiliation. It's not like those registered as democrats have never done any wrong.
At this point in my life, I don't have the patience to argue with someone who is pushing falsehoods. This is why I said my piece, and that's it. Unless something new or relevant pops up, I don't have the time to argue in circles. I don't mind debating, but if someone doesn't have the respect to present a sound argument, I can't be bothered to listen. He's not on the ignore list, but he's definitely on the not relevant list.
I actually think the laptop should be investigated. No man is above the law. Not you, not I, not Trump, not Biden. However, after years of so called "investigation", even with the GQP in control of such investigations, nothing has come of it. At this point, the only logical conclusion is there's nothing there. At least nothing as far as any wrongdoing by Joe Biden. So unless someone has actual proof of a conspiracy by Joe Biden, which no one has put forth, then it's all right wing conspiracy theories at this point.
The worse they have on Joe Biden is, he tried to do damage control and spin negative news in a better light. Like really? Man, when my wife catches me doing shit I'm not supposed to or promised her not to do, I try to spin it in a positive light too. Sure, that laptop is a bit more serious than me hanging out with the boys, gambling and drinking, but in both cases, we're still spinning negative news in a better light. Or at least trying to.
As for Hunter...that's a different story. But whatever Hunter has done, that's on him. Hunter is not in any political office. Unlike the Trumps and their blatant disregard for the law, Joe Biden has not hired his entire family to leach off of taxpayer dollars.
Something I Iike to teach my young daughter is that even worse than being wrong is to fail to realize when you're wrong and to keep arguing as if you were right without a clue in the world.
I don't really care if you do or don't to be honest. If you think the 300+ pages of testimony is a steaming pile of crap without reading any of it. That's your prerogative.It's funny that somehow it's our fault that we don't listen to their so-called evidence. They present a steaming pile of crap, then complain when we don't eat it.
I'm more than happy to debate, which is why I took the time to actually read the articles and see what they say. But when the guy spouting baseless conspiracy theories didn't even read the articles, how is anyone supposed to take him seriously?
Unlike those on the right, the more liberal leaning members of this forum are more than happy to debate, and if the proof warrants it, condemn any politician for wrong doings regardless of political affiliation. It's not like those registered as democrats have never done any wrong.
At this point in my life, I don't have the patience to argue with someone who is pushing falsehoods. This is why I said my piece, and that's it. Unless something new or relevant pops up, I don't have the time to argue in circles. I don't mind debating, but if someone doesn't have the respect to present a sound argument, I can't be bothered to listen. He's not on the ignore list, but he's definitely on the not relevant list.
I actually think the laptop should be investigated. No man is above the law. Not you, not I, not Trump, not Biden. However, after years of so called "investigation", even with the GQP in control of such investigations, nothing has come of it. At this point, the only logical conclusion is there's nothing there. At least nothing as far as any wrongdoing by Joe Biden. So unless someone has actual proof of a conspiracy by Joe Biden, which no one has put forth, then it's all right wing conspiracy theories at this point.
The worse they have on Joe Biden is, he tried to do damage control and spin negative news in a better light. Like really? Man, when my wife catches me doing shit I'm not supposed to or promised her not to do, I try to spin it in a positive light too. Sure, that laptop is a bit more serious than me hanging out with the boys, gambling and drinking, but in both cases, we're still spinning negative news in a better light. Or at least trying to.
As for Hunter...that's a different story. But whatever Hunter has done, that's on him. Hunter is not in any political office. Unlike the Trumps and their blatant disregard for the law, Joe Biden has not hired his entire family to leach off of taxpayer dollars.
I've responded to that post, you didn't bother to read it. So please stop bitching STILL that I didn't get to it before that post. I explained why then if I recall.You still haven't answered the following so I'll try for the 4th time...
Since Rudy had the laptop at one time if there was anything on it that incriminated Joe why didn't Rudy just release it? Example of incriminating evidence a deposit statement from a foreign country of corporation to Joe Biden or pick your own example.
The entire premise of the outrage over the laptop is it contains evidence of corruption by Joe Biden. Has anyone produced that evidence?
As for the whistleblowers, why haven't they testified in public and subject to cross? Are these the whistleblowers they lost? Did the dog eat the Republicans homework?
I don't have any idea why the FBI in Baltimore asked for the "device number" and then used that to conclude it was registered to Hunter instead of sending an agent. The "very blind" repairman seemed to be the shop owner. His son seems to be the one doing the work there doesn't seem to be much info on that and that's a guess. I'm not an expert in how the FBI operates. Maybe it was less manpower intensive to follow up on leads that way instead of sending agents to every single one. That would also explain the need to ask what was on it before making actual contact. I assume they also wanted to know if a warrant was needed or not and took a while deciding how to proceed.Does it makes any sense to you that according to the time line, the FBI used the very blind repair man to verify if the lap top was Hunter Bidens, as well as used that same blind repair man to determine if it contained any incriminating evidence? Specially when it goes against nearly every protocol in place for handing and evaluating such evidence?
You didn't even read the pages of the transcript I pointed out. This is literally the next line in the transcriptThe factual timeline, which did not come from the whistleblowers, isn't in question. What is in question is the fact that the whistleblowers testimony about the time line, indicates a different timeline than what the actual/factual timeline indicates. Like I said, if they can't testify accurately about the basic facts about a known timeline, how can anything else be considered accurate or truthful? All you have done is proven that they their testimony is indeed not reliable, which means that the 300 transcript of their testimony is nothing more than a work of fiction.
No, we decided long ago that the only truth to be known is that Rudy intentionally destroyed any chance of finding what truth might have existed. Rudy is a former prosecutor, not some bumpkin. He knew exactly what he was doing to the chain of evidence. Rudy wanted innuendo, not truth, and he has been wildly successful in achieving that goal.At this point I'm not sure I'm going to bother anymore. It's not worth anyone's time. Everyone here decided a long time ago what the truth was and nothing will change that.
You can’t prove a negative. At this point, there is ZERO concrete evidence to back what you feel is real. You’re no better than Rudy at this point.I'm not sure i see how the whistleblower's testimony indicates a different timeline than the one you said isn't in question. Since the whistleblower actually wrote it based on what he was told. Can you explain that to me and provide proof? It's getting old that no one here posts anything backing up a single statement yet expects me to verify word for word anything I post.
I havent gone through the transcripts yet, something far more interesting took place in Russia and real life caught up with me, I will say a couple of things though
1. You have to recognize how easy it is to fall into an information silo that convinces 100% regular folk of something like this "Rogan narrative" of this story.
2. If you dont hold the door open on your own convictions, that they may not be 100% in tune with reality, IMO you are doing it wrong. Realities are by definition subjective.
Most of my "berating" and frustration has been because no one has read the transcripts yet. They're experts on the subject and know everything about the case already even though this deals more with the FBI side than the Rudy NY Post attempt to through dirt at the Biden campaign. I should have added them to my initial post but at the time I hadn't even started reading through them so I just tossed the CBS story there. Many have ignored or twisted what I said. Made assumptions about me or repeatedly inferred things about me without zero proof and they want to act like they're acting perfectly rational as well. I've been bitched at because I didn't respond to a question even though I already had and explained that I was also paying a lot more attention the the Russian Wagner thing that started after I made the initial post. I also think that the while the idea "that i need to get that road rage under control is valid". You should try being the one person getting yelled at by dozens of others and see how you remain completely calm. How it's fine for me to be expected to answer every question I'm thrown at while there's no actual discussion in most cases. Just assertions that I'm an idiot for thinking anything that the group doesn't agree with. The one question I asked fskimospy he decided he had no opinion on. Several others have replied with responses with just more questions That's apparently how i should have responded as well.3. If you're going to berate everyone who does not align with your own convictions to the tune of 99.5% how do you ever expect to move on from there? Specially when the nature and future of this debate *is* online, need to get that road rage under control.
That's a lot of BS you made up just to justify a position. Bottom line Rudy had it at one time. He didn't release the info because there is...wait for it...I've responded to that post, you didn't bother to read it. So please stop bitching STILL that I didn't get to it before that post. I explained why then if I recall.
I'll answer again since you asked differently.
I don't think the full timeline with Rudy's involvement is out there. It doesn't appear that he ever had the laptop though. The computer repairman or his son made a copy after it was "his" property and gave that copy to Rudy after or at the same time as the FBI is my assumption. I'm sure the release was timed to influence the election since that's how both sides operate. But that's also my opinion.
Most of my outrage is about the whistleblowers and Hunter and partly towards how the entire thing was handled like I mentioned above to akugami. I didn't post months ago or even really follow it since the election until these whistleblowers came forward.
They are whistleblowers, at least one claims he was retaliated against. If i was in their shoes I'd probably be careful what I came out with and what I said and who I said it to. That's generally the advice lawyers give to people in situations like that. If you want to know more, ask them.
He could most definitely point out what timeline he's talking about since the timeline I posted came from the transcripts and the whistleblower said he wrote it (exhibit 6). He (NWRMidnight) agreed with that timeline and then said it varied from the whistleblowers. I'm not sure how that's logic. If there's another timeline I wanted to see it.You can’t prove a negative. At this point, there is ZERO concrete evidence to back what you feel is real. You’re no better than Rudy at this point.
Hmm 2 people vs the rest of the DOJ. I’d trust the rest of the DOJ. Oh wait, they’re just an echo chamber.Most of my "berating" and frustration has been because no one has read the transcripts yet. They're experts on the subject and know everything about the case already even though this deals more with the FBI side than the Rudy NY Post attempt to through dirt at the Biden campaign.
I do appreciate that you are advocating that the FBI/DOJ should have, once again, said something publicly to affect an election. Quite telling actually.
If you're going to insinuate I said or advocated that, please point out where. I will say unequivocally say I do not advocate that.
At the same time I think the FBI reportedly doing just the opposite and warning facebook that it was potential disinformation when they had the laptop in custody at the time, knew it was his, and had found no evidence of disinformation is doing pretty much that though.
Thinking it's shady for ex officials to attempt to bury the story because the Biden camp asked is definitely not the same thing. It's definitely a First Amendment issue and I'm not going to really touch it. It's more the Biden's campaign influence on them to all issue the statement and things like Morell being a potential Biden pick for CIA director if he won the campaign that makes it any different. I still would just call it shady and leave it as is for now. Maybe there should have been a disclaimer at the bottom as well that stated we wrote this because the Biden campaign asked us.