Biden's Laptop: It's real, and it's spectacular
-
It looks like there’s an embedded assumption in that. The FBI agents on the case verified it. But it’s like they sent a memo to all 35,000 field agents (which would be the same as making it public).
Why would you expect other agents not to be skeptical of a laptop delivered from some guy via Giuliani to the NY Post?
Even Fox and WSJ turned the story down due to its sketchy provenance.
-
It was a year between verification of the laptop as being Hunter's and the Giuliani NY Post events.
Do you think WSJ and Fox would have handled it differently had they known the laptop was verified almost a year before they were offered it?
The embedded assumption is yours, that the provenance was sketchy. FBI hid the provenance, and when it was discounted as having "hallmarks of Russian disinformation" the FBI was silent.
-
I see your point.
OTOH, if the laptop contains evidence of a crime, as it seems to, would the FBI not pursue that? Especially a year before a presidential election.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I see your point.
OTOH, if the laptop contains evidence of a crime, as it seems to, would the FBI not pursue that? Especially a year before a presidential election.
@George-K said in Biden's Laptop: It's real, and it's spectacular:
OTOH, if the laptop contains evidence of a crime, as it seems to, would the FBI not pursue that? Especially a year before a presidential election.
-
How do you know whether the laptop contained evidence of a suspected offense that the FBI would classify as a crime at the time? It may also be that whatever suspected offense being investigated has not been elevated to the level of a “crime” at the time, no?
-
Even if the suspected offense was classified as a “crime” at the time, how do you know that the evidence in the laptop crosses a threshold that should have compelled the FBI (either via established policy or as a matter of common practice) to “pursue” that evidence at the time?
-
How do you know that the FBI did not “pursue” that?
I leave he work “pursue” in quotes because I do not know what you mean by it in this context, please feel free to continue to use whatever definition of “pursue” you have in mind thus far. If you care to elaborate on what you mean by “pursue” in this context, I will appreciate it.
-
-
The contortions folks are engaged in to somehow protect Biden are revealing
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Biden's Laptop: It's real, and it's spectacular:
The contortions folks are engaged in to somehow protect Biden are revealing
I’m not protecting Biden. I have no doubt Hunter made millions over decades trading on his last name. It’s 100% sleazy but probably not illegal which I view as unfortunate. I would be perfectly happy to see him jailed. I’d particularly like it if he and Trump became neighbors in Club Fed.
But what I’m really doing here is pointing out how much wishcasting is occurring on the right
-
Once again, our government's former employees beclown themselves.
If only they had told us that it was real back in 2020...but no. The GIC (Geezer in Chief) commented, during a debate, that all this was bullshit and that dozens of intelligence agents assured us that this was Russian disinformation.
The NYT published an ad saying the same thing.
And now, this is a piece of evidence in a criminal trial.
Pay attention.
