a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So let me understand the argument from the right. A warning about potentially erroneous information in a laptop of potentially questionable authenticity by the FBI, which potentially may have influence in an election is weaponizing the FBI for political reasons.

Yet in 2026 the FBI announces it will reopen the Hillary email investigation just ahead of the election, but I’m certain in the Jim and crappie man’s view that isn’t also weaponizing the FBI for the same political reasons by the timing of that announcement which did impact that election.

What’s the word for that, oh yeah hypocrisy.

The FBI was in possession of Hunter's laptop. They had the laptop.
It's the FBI. They knew it was legit, they knew it wasn't Russian disinformation. They lied to big tech, in order to suppress the story, and it's hard to believe the timing (right before the election) is a coincidence.

Here's another hypocrisy...the left spent a lot of time end energy, investigating the Trump Russia hoax. But they don't want to spend 2 seconds to see if the Bidens broke any laws, or if the FBI acted as agents of the democrat party.

"et in 2026 the FBI announces it will reopen the Hillary email investigation just ahead of the election"

Hilary mishandled the emails. Had she not chosen to do that, we wouldn't be talking about this. Her email handling should have been investigated right away, and thoroughly.

I'm not saying politics didn't play into that. And to whatever extent it did, that was wrong. But the FBI didn't fabricate the idea that she mishandled emails. The FBI did fabricate the idea that the laptop was russian disinformation. There was never any reason to believe that's what the laptop was. The obvious conclusion is that they did it to help the Biden campaign.

Elections have consequences Bob. You guys launched a politically-motivated investigation into Trump and Russia, based partly on the debunked Steele dossier. Now it's the right's turn. The laptop is legit. Only radicals liberals blind to truth are still denying that.

Democrats hate it when the republicans turn the tables and use their own tactics against them.

Senator Biden says the US Senate should refuse to allow a republican president to nominate a supreme court justice late in his second term, nobody questions it. When McConnell invokes the Biden Rule, it's a national horror.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi kicks Republicans she doesn't like, off their committees, breaking longstanding tradition that each side gets to pick who is on what committee. Kevin McCarthy does the same exact thing, and he's a weasel for doing so.

The democrats launch a massive investigation into Trump and Russia, that was their civic duty. The GOP wants to do the same exact thing to Biden, and they're awful for doing so.

It's only OK when democrats do it!!

[Got Stripers]

The Special Counsel indicted 34 people—seven U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations. Now that's a hoax for sure Jim, keep that foil hat tight, otherwise your going to loose brain matter you can ill afford to loose.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The Special Counsel indicted 34 people—seven U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations. Now that's a hoax for sure Jim, keep that foil hat tight, otherwise your going to loose brain matter you can ill afford to loose.

this goes back to Jim and others logic since they didn't tie Trump directly it never happened

and they always leave this statement out

Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and they always leave this statement out

Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

What Mueller wrote should indicate to you, that the purpose of the investigation is to make a conclusion. In order to make a conclusion, there must be substantial unequivocal evidence. If there is not such evidence, there is, at least in law, a presumption of innocence. If there is not sufficient evidence to indict, the matter is over for the counsel. There is no need for any comment on exoneration. That merely muddies the investigation and its purpose.

When there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy, that was not "exoneration". It was the CONCLUSION that Trump was not indictable. He might, in reality, have committed the crime, but if that can't be proven, the matter is over. By law, Trump is presumed innocent. But if you want to feel, or think, or have the opinion, that he is guilty, that's your prerogative.

As for obstruction, the duty and process for Mueller is the same. He could not find unequivocal evidence that Trump could be indicted for obstruction. It wasn't his duty to "exonerate," it was his job to CONCLUDE if Trump was indictable. He couldn't.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What Mueller wrote should indicate to you, that the purpose of the investigation is to make a conclusion. In order to make a conclusion, there must be substantial unequivocal evidence. If there is not such evidence, there is, at least in law, a presumption of innocence. If there is not sufficient evidence to indict, the matter is over for the counsel. There is no need for any comment on exoneration. That merely muddies the investigation and its purpose.

When there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy, that was not "exoneration". It was the CONCLUSION that Trump was not indictable. He might, in reality, have committed the crime, but if that can't be proven, the matter is over. By law, Trump is presumed innocent. But if you want to feel, or think, or have the opinion, that he is guilty, that's your prerogative.

As for obstruction, the duty and process for Mueller is the same. He could not find unequivocal evidence that Trump could be indicted for obstruction. It wasn't his duty to "exonerate," it was his job to CONCLUDE if Trump was indictable. He couldn't.

Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\

Not really. If the special counsel cannot indict a sitting president, then there would be no reason to appoint one. And if there were unequivocal evidence to indict or prosecute, that could be stated so in the report as it was stated in vol. 1 regarding conspiracy where it was stated that there was insufficient evidence. The examples of possible obstruction in vol. 2 were not unequivocal, but could mean other than obstruction, as, I believe, Mueller stated. Therefor they could not be grounds for indictment.

If the Counsel can state insufficient, he can state sufficient, even if the DOJ policy denies him the ability to indict. Otherwise, what's the point of investigating obstruction. He can conclude, that is the point of a special counsel investigation. Leaving it up in the air is the same as saying it wasn't the responsibility of the special counsel to begin with. And throwing in the "cannot exonerate" bit is not only inconclusive, it is irresponsible, it is an example of creating an air of guilt without having to actually demonstrate guilt--which can, rightly, be perceived as a political "conclusion" rather than a legal one. Or, as another incidence of "deep state" influence or interference on government policy and or on public perception.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The FBI was in possession of Hunter's laptop. They had the laptop.
It's the FBI. They knew it was legit, they knew it wasn't Russian disinformation. They lied to big tech, in order to suppress the story, and it's hard to believe the timing (right before the election) is a coincidence.

There’s no real evidence the FBI misled anyone. Hunter had already been under investigation for several years which wasn’t disclosed. From the sworn testimony it looks like the FBI’s interest in a Russian hack and leak was 1) they did it en masse to help trump in 2016 and 2) they believed that Russia hacked Burisma when Hunter was there and they would use that in a similar manner. #dupedagain

Also, common sense. You have hundreds of right wing sites you know are going to run with the story. There’s no way the FBI could put a lid on it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There’s no real evidence the FBI misled anyone. Hunter had already been under investigation for several years which wasn’t disclosed. From the sworn testimony it looks like the FBI’s interest in a Russian hack and leak was 1) they did it en masse to help trump in 2016 and 2) they believed that Russia hacked Burisma when Hunter was there and they would use that in a similar manner. #dupedagain

Also, common sense. You have hundreds of right wing sites you know are going to run with the story. There’s no way the FBI could put a lid on it.

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There’s no real evidence the FBI misled anyone. Hunter had already been under investigation for several years which wasn’t disclosed. From the sworn testimony it looks like the FBI’s interest in a Russian hack and leak was 1) they did it en masse to help trump in 2016 and 2) they believed that Russia hacked Burisma when Hunter was there and they would use that in a similar manner. #dupedagain

Also, common sense. You have hundreds of right wing sites you know are going to run with the story. There’s no way the FBI could put a lid on it.

THe FBI had the laptop in its possession. The FBI knew whether or not it was a Russian hoax. What evidence did the FBI have, that it was russian disinformation.

getting fritter and facebook to bam something, is putting a lid on it. That’s where people are, his help them.

Der ich previously posted testimony from the Roth guy from twitter, he claims the fbi specifically mentioned the laptop. So if the FBI had no reason to believe the laptop was russian disinformation, but they told twitter and facebook it was, that’s misleading.

common sense

The author i posted is respected by both TIME magazine ( who called him “a hero of the environment”) and Foxnews. He saw the twitter files and says it’s disturbing.

You’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan who hasn’t seen what he has seen. Tell me why you’re more reliable than he is on this.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

THe FBI had the laptop in its possession. The FBI knew whether or not it was a Russian hoax. What evidence did the FBI have, that it was russian disinformation.

getting fritter and facebook to bam something, is putting a lid on it. That’s where people are, his help them.

Der ich previously posted testimony from the Roth guy from twitter, he claims the fbi specifically mentioned the laptop. So if the FBI had no reason to believe the laptop was russian disinformation, but they told twitter and facebook it was, that’s misleading.

common sense

The author i posted is respected by both TIME magazine ( who called him “a hero of the environment”) and Foxnews. He saw the twitter files and says it’s disturbing.

You’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan who hasn’t seen what he has seen. Tell me why you’re more reliable than he is on this.

Because you’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Because you’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

THe FBI had the laptop in its possession. The FBI knew whether or not it was a Russian hoax. What evidence did the FBI have, that it was russian disinformation.

getting fritter and facebook to bam something, is putting a lid on it. That’s where people are, his help them.

Der ich previously posted testimony from the Roth guy from twitter, he claims the fbi specifically mentioned the laptop. So if the FBI had no reason to believe the laptop was russian disinformation, but they told twitter and facebook it was, that’s misleading.

common sense

The author i posted is respected by both TIME magazine ( who called him “a hero of the environment”) and Foxnews. He saw the twitter files and says it’s disturbing.

You’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan who hasn’t seen what he has seen. Tell me why you’re more reliable than he is on this.

You’re not paying attention, and Roth said no such thing that I’ve seen.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You’re not paying attention, and Roth said no such thing that I’ve seen.

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?