Biden met with Hunter Biden business partner at White House in 2010: Report

Idk. If I had a son with an addiction problem I wouldn't be ignoring it. Would you?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/
https://www.mediaite.com/print/wash...-with-determining-authenticity-of-hard-drive/
Maybe these will help. As you can tell, the water is very muddy. Maybe I'm being biased (lol) but anything touched by Giuliani is suspect.

 

I'm ok with that, but why would you wait until there is a partisan group in charge? Fairness would dictate that the party in control shouldn't make a difference.
And it that's ok, why then shouldn't they investigate Ivanka and Jared? Seems like some shady deals were done there also.

 

I thought both of them are being investigated (and given testimony to the 1/6 Committee). If you look at what happened even with that as an example, which Party would you say is trying to shut the other Party out of a fair investigation?

I only lean towards the Republicans conducting an investigation into the Biden family affairs because the Democrats, along with the MSM, is doing what they can to shut it down. I expect Hunter to be given a plea deal and all records from the investigation being sealed. Would that be ok with you?

 

I don't want to speculate on the outcome, but both parties try to shut out the others. We have a situation where both parties are putting party above country, and it should be the other way around.

 

I can agree with that. I've become more cynical about anyone up the food chain ever being held accountable. Especially when even an investigation is thrawted. This affair with Hunter screams for a Special Counsel appointment, but instead Garland expects us to trust him not to interfere with any investigation. That's the same AG that planned to attack parents at the behest of the Teacher's Union. Trust is earned and he hasn't earned it.

 

Thanks for this info. When I first heard of the unaccounted $5.2 million I thought it was Hunter's unaccounted money, not Joe's.

 

[QUOTE="balancing act, post: 1073409013, member:
Maybe these will help. As you can tell, the water is very muddy. Maybe I'm being biased (lol) but anything touched by Giuliani is suspect.[/QUOTE]

Not sure of your point. Nothing there contradicts my assertions

 

Ivanka got her Chinese trademark by paying the few $100 fee like anyone else. And Jareds deals are reported in the media as they are completed. Bidens deals have been hidden for years.

 

Not sure of your point. Nothing there contradicts my assertions[/QUOTE]
That the FBI did not have the hard drive or laptop before Giuliani.
Another point: IF the FBI has the same information, taken from the same laptop and hard drive, and it contains proof of illegal actions, why haven't they charged anyone with anything? I don't know either, but there is something extremely fishy about all this. My gut tells me that Giuliani has taken some factual data, and intermixed it with some non-factual data or altered the data, then gave it to the Washington Post. He didn't want to give the FBI the "doctored" data, fearing legal reprisal, so he gives it to a news outlet(??), and they can slowly leak it out to the public to give the impression that Biden is corrupt.
I'm not saying Biden ISN'T corrupt, but the evidence of corruption is sketchy, incomplete, unverified (in totality) and, IMO, not trustworthy to make a final determination from.

 

We've operated under the circumstantial evidence principle for eons.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence

Fact: Biden has claimed never having talked to his son about his business affairs.
Fact: One of Hunter's business partners visited the White House (during Joe's tenure as VP) 27 times. At least once with Joe himself and the other times with members of his staff.

This is circumstantial evidence that Joe not only discussed Hunter's business with his son, but directly with one of his partners.

This is just one example of circumstantial evidence from which one can infer that Joe benefited from Hunter's business arrangements. It adds up to a reasonable conclusion.

Eta: Had to clean up the quote from balancing act.

 

Circumstantial, inferential, and reasonable. No problem. These all have a place in due process. It still takes a verdict to make finding a fact. I'll wait for a verdict.

Meanwhile, how about we apply these same standards to Trump's escapades. Mmmmmmmmkay ?

 

Actually, even a verdict doesn't make it a fact. In any criminal proceeding a jury is just rendering their opinions on the evidence presented. Here, we are just engaged in the court of public opinions without the benefit of sentencing anyone.

 

But they did. December 2019 before Giuliani had even seen the copy. Nothing in your source contradicts that fact.

They are corrupt to the core. While Trump was being impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate Hunter and Joes dealings in Ukraine, they sat quietly on the laptop that confirms what has been alleged regarding Hunter and Joes dealings in Ukraine

 

Twice impeached and twice acquitted of all charges. And coincidently TODAY the much heralded Manhattan DA grand jury hunting for dirt on Trump expires.

 

You need to read those links I posted more carefully. Isaac Mac, the computer shop owner, made multiple copies of it before the FBI got the laptop.
He then gave a copy to Giuliani.
From the Post, the paper Giuliani gave it to:
"Neither found clear evidence of tampering in their examinations, but some of the records that might have helped verify contents were not available for analysis, they said"
"Among the reasons for the inconclusive findings was sloppy handling of the data, which damaged some records. The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years. The MacBook itself is now in the hands of the FBI, which is investigating whether Hunter Biden properly reported income from business dealings."
"Most of the data obtained by The Post lacks cryptographic features that would help experts make a reliable determination of authenticity, especially in a case where the original computer and its hard drive are not available for forensic examination. Other factors, such as emails that were only partially downloaded, also stymied the security experts’ efforts to verify content."
"The Washington Post’s forensic findings are unlikely to resolve that debate, offering instead only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic. The security experts who examined the data for The Post struggled to reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive."

First off, I would like to see a comparison of what was on the original hard drive to what was on the "copy". They won't let anyone else examine the data. If it was legit, wouldn't you hire a neutral 3rd party to examine the data to glean the facts from the speculation, or to verify the data?
The Post tried, but could only verify a few things by matching some with known sources. A far cry from verification.
Also, the shop owner was very sketchy, and did some things that were highly unusual for a computer shop owner.
First, he scanned through an enormous amount of data, which he would not do under normal circumstances. Then, he says the computer kept shutting down when he was trying to download the data. A technician would not go through that, he would take out the hard drive and attach it to a working computer so he wouldn't have to deal with that. For a computer technician, these are very unusual actions to take.

As far as the FBI being corrupt, I can't argue with that, but I'll bet if the FBI had verified all the data and said Hunter had done anything inappropriate, you would be howling about how the FBI "proved" you point instead of how corrupt they are.
You are only seeing what you want to see. If you are comfortable with you position, fine. I'm comfortable with mine.
Now, go find something that backs up your position and I'll gladly look at it.
I like to be accurate, and if you have a link to something that proves what I said is wrong, I would love to see it.
So far, what I've seen is sketchy facts and opinions. My gut instinct tells me that there is something very wrong with this picture.......
You also haven't posted any links that back up your position. That's ok, we each have our own opinions, but before I can credit someone with wrongdoing, I like to see actual proof, and when someone like Giuliani is involved, one needs to be especially careful.

 

Notice how all that you copied and pasted doesnt support your assertion or contradict mine. YOU are the one who needs to read more carefully, or recognize that you are full of shiite.

 

Thanks for the helpful dialogue!
When you would like to have an adult conversation with someone, please look elsewhere.
Enjoy your ignorant bliss!

 

You quoted three paragraphs of material that DOES not support your assertion or contradict mine. You are probably trying to hide the fact that you have no helpful dialogue to offer.... or adult conversation. FBI has the actual laptop and hard drive. They got a court ordered warrant to take it from the computer shop in December 2019. BEFORE Guiliani or any media gained access to the COPIES of the hard drive

 

Ok, I was intending to stop arguing the point that neither one of us appear to be changing their thoughts on this, and there is nothing else to add, but I had to point out the obvious problem with your statement.
You stated that "FBI has the actual laptop and hard drive. They got a court ordered warrant to take it from the computer shop in December 2019. BEFORE Guiliani or any media gained access to the COPIES of the hard drive"
So, how did Giuliani get a copy of the hard drive? From the FBI? Then he gave it to the NYPO? Maybe the misunderstanding can be explained this way. You are saying that the FBI got the laptop before Giuliani got a copy. But the shop owner made several copies before the FBI got it.
April 19th, 2019: Hunter Biden allegedly drops off the laptop at the computer shop.
July, 2019: Mac Isaac contacts the FBI about the laptop. At this time, Giuliani also starts spouting about Biden and wrongdoing, especially concerning Hunter.
Dec 9th, 2019: The FBI served a subpoena for the laptop.
It says that, according to sources, later, Isaac provided a copy to Giuliani and he then gave it to the NY Post, (which I was in error earlier and said WAPO.)
It says there was an email from August 26th, 2020, regarding the data. How convenient! Just in time for the election!
I think Giuliani had the "copy" in July, 2019. I think they manipulated the data, hard to tell where and how much, but that's what I, and most of the news sources, think happened. That's why no one wanted to report on it, because it was too shady and unreliable. Probably why the FBI hasn't produced anything from it, too unreliable and unverifiable. The NYPost still won't let anyone else examine the data for forensic clues. Seems like something that controversial and important would be examined down to the details, but when the WashPost tried to do that there were all kinds of problems with it, outlined in the links I posted.
If you want to believe whatever, more power to you. Do you believe what Giuliani says?
I know what you are saying, that you believe everything Giuliani said about this. I'm saying I don't believe it, and it is surrounded by shady actions, is mostly unverifiable, and appears to be "manipulated". It fits the narrative you want, so you believe it. "Sales tactics 101". Tell the customer what they want to hear.
And thanks for ending the insults.

 

I've bolded the part above that directly supports my assertion you now deny. To separate it out from the irrelevant cover. According to Giuliani he got it in May 2020 which is "later" than Dec 2019 when the FBI took it.

 

Because Giuliani is so truthful and reliable..............

 

And absurd to think Giuliani would alter or fabricate anything alleged to be from the laptop, when he knows the FBI has the original laptop and hard drive.

 

Could someone please post exactly what it was that Hunter did that was illegal.
And not just the things that look bad.

 

Failed to report gift to dad taxes and money laundering.