Hunter's laptop

[DKW 86 7,419]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Who’s defending Hunter? He’s being investigated. Who’s calling for the stop to that investigation? Who are you arguing with?

Those on this forum that wanted no part of any investigation back just a few months ago. One told us very clearly that corruption in political families was just a "Cost of doing business" and to shut up. Everyone did it and the Biden's were just as bad as everyone else and we needed to drop this story...

[TexasTiger 12,829]

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Those on this forum that wanted no part of any investigation back just a few months ago. One told us very clearly that corruption in political families was just a "Cost of doing business" and to shut up. Everyone did it and the Biden's were just as bad as everyone else and we needed to drop this story...

Who said that? Connected family members often benefit from those connections, which may be unfair, but not necessarily illegal. If it crosses the line into illegality, prosecute.

[AuburnNTexas 7,139]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Who’s defending Hunter? He’s being investigated. Who’s calling for the stop to that investigation? Who are you arguing with?

You are correct the investigation is ongoing. I think the problem is that there was more credible evidence that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate then the Steele Dossier was and yet one was on the news 24  hours a day 7 days a week even before an investigation had been started and the other was pronounced misinformation as soon as it came out. It doesn't matter if Steele Dossier originated with a Republican or Democrat it was the dissemination without validation by DNC and the press running with it without validation.

The other issue some have is all the people who signed the paper saying it was Russian smear campaign signed it with out actually having access to the laptop, had no way of knowing if it was his or not.  The normal response is we can't comment on this while it is under investigation.  Now that it has been proven it was his and emails are legitimate where is the apology for signing this document without having any real knowledge that it was a Russian smear campaign. Normal government response is no comment as this is an ongoing investigation.

  

[DKW 86 7,419]

27 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Who said that? Connected family members often benefit from those connections, which may be unfair, but not necessarily illegal. If it crosses the line into illegality, prosecute.

And there you go.... That kind of brain mush thinking is why we cant have nice things...

It obviously crossed into illegality and should be prosecuted always, even with Hunter Biden. 

Edited March 27, 2022 by DKW 86

[TexasTiger 12,829]

28 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You are correct the investigation is ongoing. I think the problem is that there was more credible evidence that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate then the Steele Dossier was and yet one was on the news 24  hours a day 7 days a week even before an investigation had been started and the other was pronounced misinformation as soon as it came out. It doesn't matter if Steele Dossier originated with a Republican or Democrat it was the dissemination without validation by DNC and the press running with it without validation.

The other issue some have is all the people who signed the paper saying it was Russian smear campaign signed it with out actually having access to the laptop, had no way of knowing if it was his or not.  The normal response is we can't comment on this while it is under investigation.  Now that it has been proven it was his and emails are legitimate where is the apology for signing this document without having any real knowledge that it was a Russian smear campaign. Normal government response is no comment as this is an ongoing investigation.

  

Who commented? The FBI didn’t, did they? 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

10 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And there you go.... That kind of brain mush thinking is why we cant have nice things...

It obviously crossed into illegality and should be prosecuted always, even with Hunter Biden. 

Thanks for illustrating brain mush thinking. 👍🏻

[AU9377 4,924]

On 3/25/2022 at 10:49 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

Nice try she signed a document that said she would only use government email systems. I am sure there are multiple people on this board who worked with and some who still work with Gov. email systems and they can verify that they signed similar documents. It doesn't matter intent the reason for that is the government systems have multiple layers of protection a private system does not. We don't know if her system was compromised because they wiped it and bleached it so no forensics could be done. Her system could have been compromised and people who should not have had access to the classified information could have gotten it.

There are multiple reports whether true or not that the Russians had her emails and offered them to Trump.  If true it means her system was compromised and classified material was leaked to bad actors because she  intentionally ignored the document she signed. So indirectly all the people who hate Trump and say that he was offered this material are actually proving my point that she was a criminal. Sailor's on subs have been convicted by taking pictures and showing to family. She wasn't convicted of anything because she was protected.  

That wasn't a try.  I listed a couple of often overlooked facts that were vital in the decision by 3 Attorney Generals, two of which were Trump appointees, to not attempt to prosecute.  What could have happened and what might have happened mean nothing. In order to prosecute someone criminally, you have to be able to prove something happened.  The FBI wasn't able to do that and they certainly have the resources to do so.

You still don't seem to get the distinction.  A sailor on a sub showing a picture to someone is prosecutable because that sailor knew he was showing classified material to someone that did not have authorization to see that material.

The FBI was unable to find any instance which HC sent a classified document to someone that was unauthorized to view/receive that document. It "could" happen, but could doesn't get a conviction, it only gets a prosecutor embarrassed.

This entire issue is silly.  Had Obama really wanted to step into the issue, he could have simply unclassified everything on her server and there would have been nothing to investigate.  Do you honestly think she had any intent to harm the country?

[AU9377 4,924]

35 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You are correct the investigation is ongoing. I think the problem is that there was more credible evidence that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate then the Steele Dossier was and yet one was on the news 24  hours a day 7 days a week even before an investigation had been started and the other was pronounced misinformation as soon as it came out. It doesn't matter if Steele Dossier originated with a Republican or Democrat it was the dissemination without validation by DNC and the press running with it without validation.

The other issue some have is all the people who signed the paper saying it was Russian smear campaign signed it with out actually having access to the laptop, had no way of knowing if it was his or not.  The normal response is we can't comment on this while it is under investigation.  Now that it has been proven it was his and emails are legitimate where is the apology for signing this document without having any real knowledge that it was a Russian smear campaign. Normal government response is no comment as this is an ongoing investigation.

  

Neither the DNC or the press are governmental entities.  The two issues are in no way related. 

We don't have actual confirmation of the legitimacy of what may or may not be on the laptop.  Whatever may be on there, it won't send Hunter Biden to prison for any serious amount of time.  He has paid the back taxes and the only other possible charge is a FARA violation for not registering while lobbying for a foreign entity.  The fact that he rode with daddy to China and back isn't a crime.

[jj3jordan 2,050]

33 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

That wasn't a try.  I listed a couple of often overlooked facts that were vital in the decision by 3 Attorney Generals, two of which were Trump appointees, to not attempt to prosecute.  What could have happened and what might have happened mean nothing. In order to prosecute someone criminally, you have to be able to prove something happened.  The FBI wasn't able to do that and they certainly have the resources to do so.

You still don't seem to get the distinction.  A sailor on a sub showing a picture to someone is prosecutable because that sailor knew he was showing classified material to someone that did not have authorization to see that material.

The FBI was unable to find any instance which HC sent a classified document to someone that was unauthorized to view/receive that document. It "could" happen, but could doesn't get a conviction, it only gets a prosecutor embarrassed.

This entire issue is silly.  Had Obama really wanted to step into the issue, he could have simply unclassified everything on her server and there would have been nothing to investigate.  Do you honestly think she had any intent to harm the country?

Her having classified material on her unprotected insecure server is prosecutable because she knew there was classified on it and she knew the server was not secure protected and cleared for classified materials.  Thank you for finally admitting she is a criminal regardless of Comey's fear of prosecuting her to protect what he thought would be his job.

She had intent to protect herself from any future investigations and had NO regard for whether that action would harm the country.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

27 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Her having classified material on her unprotected insecure server is prosecutable because she knew there was classified on it and she knew the server was not secure protected and cleared for classified materials.  Thank you for finally admitting she is a criminal regardless of Comey's fear of prosecuting her to protect what he thought would be his job.

She had intent to protect herself from any future investigations and had NO regard for whether that action would harm the country.

Should Trump be prosecuted, too? He’s a criminal, right?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-took-docs-highest-levels-classification-mar-a-lago-wapo-2022-2?amp

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

4 hours ago, bigbird said:

This is how I see it playing out. 

After the midterms, Hunter is investigated, charged, and convicted. Hunter will receive a presidential pardon. Joe will announce he will not run in '24. Middle America is hosed and drug along...again...and again.

I have a different take, the midterms and the investigation will only be relevant if the Republicans take the house (and, hopefully the Senate).  It’s still Biden’s DOJ, so the house would start an investigation for a possible impeachment.  This would stress ole Joe out to no end.  

From that point there are so many scenarios it would be difficult to pick one.

[bigbird 60,480]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have a different take, the midterms and the investigation will only be relevant if the Republicans take the house (and, hopefully the Senate).  It’s still Biden’s DOJ, so the house would start an investigation for a possible impeachment.  This would stress ole Joe out to no end.  

From that point there are so many scenarios it would be difficult to pick one.

I thought that a given at this point

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

Just now, bigbird said:

I thought that a given at this point

I just think the House investigation will precede any DOJ action, much like the Mueller investigation.

[homersapien 11,362]

5 hours ago, bigbird said:

This is how I see it playing out. 

After the midterms, Hunter is investigated, charged, and convicted. Hunter will receive a presidential pardon. Joe will announce he will not run in '24. Middle America is hosed and drug along...again...and again.

Since you think Hunter will be "convicted" (and then pardoned) can you speculate on what crimes he will be charged with?

[homersapien 11,362]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I just think the House investigation will precede any DOJ action, much like the Mueller investigation.

The Mueller investigation was instigated by the DOJ.  Mueller was a special prosecutor appointed by the DOJ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)

And the DOJ is also investigating Hunter Biden as we speak.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The Mueller investigation was instigated by the DOJ.  Mueller was a special prosecutor appointed by the DOJ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)

And the DOJ is also investigating Hunter Biden as we speak.

 

True, thanks for pointing that out.  I do believe it will be in a more earnest way after the midterms if Republicans can retake congress.

ETA:  Refresh my memory here again.  Wasn’t the special counsel requested by the Democratic House?  Was that the reason the special counsel was convened in the first place?

Edited March 27, 2022 by I_M4_AU

[bigbird 60,480]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Since you think Hunter will be "convicted" (and then pardoned) can you speculate on what crimes he will be charged with?

Probably, but I won't. There's no telling what exactly was found, what exact criminal implications they may have, or what crimes they would fall under. Also, I probably should've said "guilty" rather than "convicted".  

Either way, HB most likely would be pardoned we'll before any trial came close to starting. 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The Mueller investigation was instigated by the DOJ.  Mueller was a special prosecutor appointed by the DOJ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)

And the DOJ is also investigating Hunter Biden as we speak.

 

From the Wikipedia your linked.

The special counsel appointment on May 17, 2017, came after protests, mostly from Democrats, over President Trump firing the FBI Director James Comeyon May 9, 2017.[53][54] In Congress, in reaction to Comey's firing, over 130 Democratic lawmakers called for a special counsel to be appointed, over 80 Democratic lawmakers called for an independent investigation, while over 40 Republican lawmakers expressed questions or concerns.

Memory refreshed.

Edited March 27, 2022 by I_M4_AU

[homersapien 11,362]

17 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Probably, but I won't.  There's no telling what exactly was found, what exact criminal implications they may have, or what crimes they would fall under.

Also, as far as a conviction goes, he most likely would be pardoned we'll before any trial started. As you know you don't need a conviction to receive a presidential pardon.

Why not?

If you really "think" (predict) that  Hunter Biden will be indicted, then surely you can at least speculate on what the potential range of crimes will be.  What - other than pure partisanship - are you basing your prediction on then.

 

[homersapien 11,362]

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

True, thanks for pointing that out.  I do believe it will be in a more earnest way after the midterms if Republicans can retake congress.

ETA:  Refresh my memory here again.  Wasn’t the special counsel requested by the Democratic House?  Was that the reason the special counsel was convened in the first place?

A more "earnest" way? 

Sounds like you have lost all hope on our jurisprudence system.

As far as your last two questions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)

......

The Mueller investigation was created by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Former FBI director Mueller was chosen to lead it due to a shortage of senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys. The dismissal of James Comey was a factor in the decision to use a Special Counsel. The Mueller investigation took over the FBI's investigation, which the FBI had named Crossfire Hurricane.

According to its authorizing document,^[9] the investigation's scope included allegations of "links and/or coordination" between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.^[10][11] Mueller was also mandated to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." The probe included a criminal investigation which looked into potential conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges against President Trump and members of his campaign or his administration.^[12]........

As far as why all this happened, that's been discussed ad-infinitum on this forum and I have little interest in re-hashing it.  (And it's not like the Mueller investigation found nothing.)

 

[bigbird 60,480]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Why not?

 

Read my 2nd sentence. The one that cleverly answers the question, "Why not".

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you really "think" (predict) that  Hunter Biden will be indicted, then surely you can at least speculate on what the potential range of crimes will be.  

For the rest, yes, I surely can speculate, as I clearly stated in my initial response. However, you apparently stopped reading the remainder.

 

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 What - other than pure partisanship - are you basing your prediction on then.

Intelligence

As far as the other, the only partisanship around here would be yours trying your best to distract from any improprieties associated with Hunter, his laptop, or Joe. Just stop.

[homersapien 11,362]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Beacuse, making guesses without all the information is foolish.

Well, the same goes for predicting that Biden will be indicted without at least some speculation as to what for.

It comes across as a purely partisan-based wish, which is why I asked.  (And to be honest, I was curious to explore possible double standards regarding Hunter and say, Trump.)

Of course you have every right to predict things based on nothing but partisan-based wishes.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The Mueller investigation was created by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Former FBI director Mueller was chosen to lead it due to a shortage of senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys. The dismissal of James Comey was a factor in the decision to use a Special Counsel. The Mueller investigation took over the FBI's investigation, which the FBI had named Crossfire Hurricane.

As my latest post suggested, the special counsel was requested my the Democrats after the Comey dismissal.  The special counsel may not have happened if the Democrats didn’t request one.

I believe something similar will happen with Hunter’s laptop.  In other words; if the Republicans take over the house there will be a call for a special counsel to look into impropriates from information that is on Hunter’s laptop.

The difference being, the impropriates will focus on Joe Biden’s involvement in possible inappropriate dealings with foreign governments.  Serious stuff.  

[bigbird 60,480]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well, the same goes for predicting that Biden will be indicted without at least some speculation as to what for.

It comes across as a purely partisan-based wish, which is why I asked.  (And to be honest, I was curious to explore possible double standards regarding Hunter and say, Trump.)

Of course you have every right to predict things based on nothing but partisan-based wishes.

Yeah, I just reread that and knew you'd jump all over that. Nice one!

As far as HB and Joe and all of their dealings there are too many layers that either of us could even start to speculate about. It'd be like asking to prove that the REC bought bama players cars.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

As my latest post suggested, the special counsel was requested my the Democrats after the Comey dismissal.  The special counsel may not have happened if the Democrats didn’t request one.

I believe something similar will happen with Hunter’s laptop.  In other words; if the Republicans take over the house there will be a call for a special counsel to look into impropriates from information that is on Hunter’s laptop.

The difference being, the impropriates will focus on Joe Biden’s involvement in possible inappropriate dealings with foreign governments.  Serious stuff.  

They may call for it. They can conduct congressional hearings to see if they uncover any reason for one for Joe. But Biden left Trump’s  US Attorney investigating Hunter in place— there’s no reason to question his independence. If he finds something implicating Joe, he can turn that over. Right now it’s just rank speculation that Joe did anything illegal.