Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[Farfromgeneva]

Again, it wasn’t Hunter’s laptop. You guys just won’t give up on us. How come no one ever responds to my points about fingerprints, DNA, and Hunter being in California when the laptop was dropped off at the blind guy’s shop in Delaware?

Hunter was hacked, as a number of independent forensic experts have concluded. The majority of the data on the laptop cannot be traced to Hunter. Some can, which is the stuff the hacker uploaded and then downloaded onto the laptop they thought they could pass off as Hunter’s.

Do you have a cite?

The wiki article has a lot of citations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Bi ... ontroversy

At this point we don't have definitive info if it was his laptop or some laptop loaded with some of his hacked data. Blind shop keeper couldn't verify who dropped it off. No chain of custody. Both sides are being cagey. Probably trying to feel out the other side. Lots of weasel words saying some of the data is authentic, but nothing regading actual physical evidence the laptop is Hunter's. I'd like more than a verbal agreement and some signed document of a random ifixit place. Fingerprints, dna, video, GPS, etc? Doesn't seem to exist. Media likes to keep it muddied for obvious $$ reasons.

Seems like multiple Republican investigations have found nothing illegal because of the laptop, so it's been a nothingburger. The tax and gun stuff was outside of the laptop.

So yeah, in the end the laptop is compromised, unverifiable and nothing has come of it. But we know a portion of the data on it is Hunter's. Until we know more. Weird situation all around.

Then again, most everyone roasted the Duke lax kids for staying silent until the evidence came out. A few waited to crucify or exhonerate.

I sniffed out the Duke issue early. On that I can claim being on the right side and not because I tripped into it hoping for my preferred outcome.

Confirmation bias.

Yes having built many econometric models im pretty familiar with what that is how to manage it and it’s impact. And I am sure there was a small bit the rejected the immediate and over the top reaction to politicize and nationalize the shaky story too fast. The New Yorker piece about Duke with Broadhead helped.

I could’ve been wrong of course because everyone is wrong sometimes. Even you though I don’t think you believe that. But clearly I wasn’t and a whole lot of others were.

[old salt]

Again, it wasn’t Hunter’s laptop. You guys just won’t give up on us. How come no one ever responds to my points about fingerprints, DNA, and Hunter being in California when the laptop was dropped off at the blind guy’s shop in Delaware?

Hunter was hacked, as a number of independent forensic experts have concluded. The majority of the data on the laptop cannot be traced to Hunter. Some can, which is the stuff the hacker uploaded and then downloaded onto the laptop they thought they could pass off as Hunter’s.

Do you have a cite?

The wiki article has a lot of citations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Bi ... ontroversy

At this point we don't have definitive info if it was his laptop or some laptop loaded with some of his hacked data. Blind shop keeper couldn't verify who dropped it off. No chain of custody. Both sides are being cagey. Probably trying to feel out the other side. Lots of weasel words saying some of the data is authentic, but nothing regading actual physical evidence the laptop is Hunter's. I'd like more than a verbal agreement and some signed document of a random ifixit place. Fingerprints, dna, video, GPS, etc? Doesn't seem to exist. Media likes to keep it muddied for obvious $$ reasons.

Seems like multiple Republican investigations have found nothing illegal because of the laptop, so it's been a nothingburger. The tax and gun stuff was outside of the laptop.

So yeah, in the end the laptop is compromised, unverifiable and nothing has come of it. But we know a portion of the data on it is Hunter's. Until we know more. Weird situation all around.

Then again, most everyone roasted the Duke lax kids for staying silent until the evidence came out. A few waited to crucify or exhonerate.

I sniffed out the Duke issue early. On that I can claim being on the right side and not because I tripped into it hoping for my preferred outcome.

Confirmation bias.

Yes having built many econometric models im pretty familiar with what that is how to manage it and it’s impact. And I am sure there was a small bit the rejected the immediate and over the top reaction to politicize and nationalize the shaky story too fast. The New Yorker piece about Duke with Broadhead helped.

I could’ve been wrong of course because everyone is wrong sometimes. Even you though I don’t think you believe that. But clearly I wasn’t and a whole lot of others were.

...& you do more thorough due diligence on your hookers/strippers.

[Farfromgeneva]

I do more due diligence on everyone. So I don’t go down other I see other fools go.

[cradleandshoot]

I do more due diligence on everyone. So I don’t go down other I see other fools go.
[/quote
????? Did you even read what you just wrote??? Since I'm pretty adept by now at interpreting your gibberish I think I know what you were trying to say. You might want to start proof reading what you compose.

[Farfromgeneva]

I do more due diligence on everyone. So I don’t go down other I see other fools go.
[/quote
????? Did you even read what you just wrote??? Since I'm pretty adept by now at interpreting your gibberish I think I know what you were trying to say. You might want to start proof reading what you compose.

Yep and do you understand I’m still way ahead of you in the game here. Or rather the game you’ve quit playing.

[cradleandshoot]

I do more due diligence on everyone. So I don’t go down other I see other fools go.
[/quote
????? Did you even read what you just wrote??? Since I'm pretty adept by now at interpreting your gibberish I think I know what you were trying to say. You might want to start proof reading what you compose.

Yep and do you understand I’m still way ahead of you in the game here. Or rather the game you’ve quit playing.

I'm too old to play games. It would be nice to decipher what your trying to say from time to time. It often takes you a 1000 words to say something you could have said in one well crafted sentence.

[MDlaxfan76]

What an authoritarian, power trip position to hold MD....that, right there, is the definition of cyber bullying.

Well wait Dmac made some accusations to me because I didn’t respond to him when he demanded a response as I checked like a day or so later. You going to apply that broadly or just in isolation as deemed useful and fit for specific purposes?

mmm, just not being around to see a question is quite different from purposely avoiding answering a straight question because one doesn't like what the answer reveals about the logic of one's prior statements; in this case, the poster responded multiple times but avoided the direct questions...it's a darn discussion board for cripesakes and youth is claiming "authoritarian" and "cyber bullying" because someone is getting called out for avoiding an actual discussion after making some pretty trolling statements...

None of us on here are 100% right all the time! speaking personally, I want my views, my logic, my understanding of 'facts' to be challenged...and if I find I'm mistaken about something, all the better!

Yes, I understand. And when others say things like “obviously I’m right because you didn’t respond when I deemed it the time for you to respond” or “see hes wrong because I don’t have a response when I expect it” is actual authoritarian behavior. And stupid.

Asking for clarification in a discussion is different. Demand int when and where and style is authoritarian (and petty juvenile) stuff.

I dunno that I'd call even that "authoritarian" as there's no real power involved, but totally understand why it's objectionable...and "stupid"...and silly to do.

[Farfromgeneva]

I do more due diligence on everyone. So I don’t go down other I see other fools go.
[/quote
????? Did you even read what you just wrote??? Since I'm pretty adept by now at interpreting your gibberish I think I know what you were trying to say. You might want to start proof reading what you compose.

Yep and do you understand I’m still way ahead of you in the game here. Or rather the game you’ve quit playing.

I'm too old to play games. It would be nice to decipher what your trying to say from time to time. It often takes you a 1000 words to say something you could have said in one well crafted sentence.

Uh huh. Says the guy who claims to not read or bother to care about learning or education repeatedly, too many times to count, on these forums.

[Farfromgeneva]

What an authoritarian, power trip position to hold MD....that, right there, is the definition of cyber bullying.

Well wait Dmac made some accusations to me because I didn’t respond to him when he demanded a response as I checked like a day or so later. You going to apply that broadly or just in isolation as deemed useful and fit for specific purposes?

mmm, just not being around to see a question is quite different from purposely avoiding answering a straight question because one doesn't like what the answer reveals about the logic of one's prior statements; in this case, the poster responded multiple times but avoided the direct questions...it's a darn discussion board for cripesakes and youth is claiming "authoritarian" and "cyber bullying" because someone is getting called out for avoiding an actual discussion after making some pretty trolling statements...

None of us on here are 100% right all the time! speaking personally, I want my views, my logic, my understanding of 'facts' to be challenged...and if I find I'm mistaken about something, all the better!

Yes, I understand. And when others say things like “obviously I’m right because you didn’t respond when I deemed it the time for you to respond” or “see hes wrong because I don’t have a response when I expect it” is actual authoritarian behavior. And stupid.

Asking for clarification in a discussion is different. Demand int when and where and style is authoritarian (and petty juvenile) stuff.

I dunno that I'd call even that "authoritarian" as there's no real power involved, but totally understand why it's objectionable...and "stupid"...and silly to do.

Well no one has power here, a lot of people missing any sense of it in their own lives which is why they say things like scoreboard and care about winning over discourse. Most the people you debate here are scared, impotent and living in the wrong cave. They view everyone and everything as power over them because they’ve crafted this victim identity narrative in their own minds. Hence the authoritarian accusation lobbed even though you didn’t actually demand anything, simply just characterized a perception of behavior to generate that incongruous allegation.

[njbill]

A story in the Free Beacon as reported to them by Gary Shapley? Two unimpeachable sources. Forgive me, but I don’t see a Pulitzer in the paper's future for this story. Shapely is the same guy who got canned from the Hunter IRS investigation for showing evident bias. Shapely is pretty clearly anti-Biden, if not full on MAGA.

Even if you take this story at face value, there are some rather significant holes. Hunter claimed he was hacked. Did the FBI investigate that and, if so, what did they find? Hunter is suing Rudy over the hacking and other issues. Presumably a lot of questions will be answered in that lawsuit about the laptop.

I’ve learned how to investigate crimes by watching TV. I have never actually investigated a crime. I suspect the FBI has a bit more training and experience in this regard than I do. If I can think of such things as DNA, fingerprints, and signature authentication, I suspect the FBI can as well.

Sure makes sense to me that the FBI would’ve checked into all those things. Did they fail to find his DNA or fingerprints on the laptop or on the receipt from the blind guy’s computer shop? If so, why hasn’t that been leaked out? Did they try to authenticate Hunter’s “signature" on the receipt? What were the results of that?

As I've said, I'm not a computer expert, but I think if you hack a computer, upload the contents, then download them onto another computer that second computer's hard drive will contain all of the hacked computer's contents and will be "authentic" as to the second computer.

So what did the FBI do to "authenticate" the laptop? Had they run down the hacking possibility before doing so?

"Federal prosecutors knew that no content on the Hunter Biden hard drive was fabricated prior to the 2020 election, according to a memo Shapley prepared on Oct. 22, 2020 and provided to the House Ways and Means Committee. Content on the hard drive were exact matches to files authorities had obtained from a search warrant of Hunter Biden’s iCloud account, the memo states."

The first sentence isn't accurate as it is pretty clear now that stuff (not Hunter's) was added to the laptop, that is, stuff that can't be independently verified as genuinely Hunter's. Yes, some of the content is genuine, but not all of it.

"We have no reason to believe there is anything fabricated nefariously on the computer and or hard drive," the memo states. "There are emails and other items that corroborate the items on the laptop and hard drive."

Notwithstanding what they may have believed, some of the stuff on the laptop was fabricated. Sounds like they only compared the hard drive to the computer, but didn't try to independently verify all of the contents.

First I've heard of these financial records (credit card receipts?) in Delaware. Let's see that stuff. I think it is pretty much undisputed that Hunter was living at California in April 2019. He met someone and married her in California the following month. Could he have flown to Delaware and taken a laptop into a repair shop in April? In theory, sure. But why wouldn’t he take his computer to a California repair shop where he lived? Why would he fly all the way across the country, drop off the laptop, then fly back to California? Again, in theory that is possible, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

[Typical Lax Dad]

[youthathletics]

Imagining is what most companies do when you are issued a laptop, it standardized all machines across the board.

Njbill - are you now walking back your dna argument?

[MDlaxfan76]

Imagining is what most companies do when you are issued a laptop, it standardized all machines across the board.

Njbill - are you now walking back your dna argument?

Clarification, imaging, not imagining.

And no, he didn't walk that back...directly above.

We simply have not heard any credible forensic confirmation that the Guiliani handled computer was actually Hunter's nor that it hadn't been altered if it was. Nor confirmation that 100% of the material on the found computer was genuinely Hunter's. The IRS agent making claims never did such forensics, has no expertise in such forensics, and wasn't part of a team doing such forensics. And his conspiracy laden bias screams lack of credibility.

so...

[youthathletics]

Imagining is what most companies do when you are issued a laptop, it standardized all machines across the board.

Njbill - are you now walking back your dna argument?

Clarification, imaging, not imagining.

And no, he didn't walk that back...directly above.

We simply have not heard any credible forensic confirmation that the Guiliani handled computer was actually Hunter's nor that it hadn't been altered if it was. Nor confirmation that 100% of the material on the found computer was genuinely Hunter's. The IRS agent making claims never did such forensics, has no expertise in such forensics, and wasn't part of a team doing such forensics. And his conspiracy laden bias screams lack of credibility.

so...

tHaNks Dad.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Imagining is what most companies do when you are issued a laptop, it standardized all machines across the board.

Njbill - are you now walking back your dna argument?

Clarification, imaging, not imagining.

And no, he didn't walk that back...directly above.

We simply have not heard any credible forensic confirmation that the Guiliani handled computer was actually Hunter's nor that it hadn't been altered if it was. Nor confirmation that 100% of the material on the found computer was genuinely Hunter's. The IRS agent making claims never did such forensics, has no expertise in such forensics, and wasn't part of a team doing such forensics. And his conspiracy laden bias screams lack of credibility.

so...

tHaNks ADULT .

Fixed it for ya.

[njbill]

Njbill - are you now walking back your dna argument?

No. I surely didn’t say that. Is there some development I am missing? Not sure why you are asking.

[youthathletics]

Njbill - are you now walking back your dna argument?

No. I surely didn’t say that. Is there some development I am missing? Not sure why you are asking.

I asked b/c your last reply did not mention it, and that seems to be something you are quite adamant about. Then TLD's you tube video shows what imaging does.....meaning, it could have been a spare/burner laptop that Hunter had re-imaged and synched with iCloud.

If you play it out.....what does the DNA really tell you if it is factual that there is no dna found and yet factual that the 99% of the data is indeed Hunters. It would really just mean someone set him digitally, but he still had authenticated nefarious data in his possession. I would assume the laptop, at this point, is still admissible evidence. Especially because the meta data encrypted in emails, photos, and documents, leave cookie crumbs.

[OCanada]

How would you describe the chain of evidence :

It is process and record that shows who obtained the evidence; where and when the evidence was obtained; who secured the evidence; and who had control or possession of the evidence. The "sequencing" of the chain of evidence follows this order: collection and identification; analysis; storage; preservation; presentation in court; return to owner

...

[njbill]

My post did mention DNA. I posited that the FBI would have checked for DNA and fingerprints and that the results of that investigation should be in the FBI files somewhere. Shapely seems to be claiming he has had access to the FBI files since he said the FBI authenticated the laptop as Hunter’s. So has Shapely selectively been disclosing (or not disclosing) what is in the FBI files?

I think the imaging and DNA/fingerprints angles are two different things. Whether or not the computer had been imaged, in my mind, there still should be DNA or fingerprints on the laptop if it truly belonged to Hunter. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that my DNA and fingerprints are all over my laptop. It would seem to me highly unlikely that there would be no DNA or fingerprints on the laptop, but I’m just an armchair crime investigator.

I guess, in theory, it could have been a laptop that Hunter had imaged, but why in the world would you do that?

Well, I think it is a big difference. If Hunter had imaged the computer himself, and then wiped it so clean that even the FBI couldn’t find DNA or fingerprints, then, yes, this is much ado about nothing. But he claims in his lawsuit that he was hacked, which seems the much more likely scenario to me. Again, not a computer expert, but my understanding would be if you hack a computer and upload the contents, you have, in effect, imaged it.

Don’t know where you get the 99% figure. Maybe you are just using that number to make a point. My understanding is that some of the contents have been authenticated by, for example, confirming emails by checking the email files of the sender or recipient. But some amount of the rest of the contents — I think more than 1% — hasn’t been authenticated.

I don’t know if the government will be able to use any of the stuff from the laptop in any criminal trial. I don’t think that simply subpoenaing records from email senders or recipients or the like will necessarily do the trick. The government will need to establish probable cause for going after that information. I don’t think they will be able to use the information from the laptop, itself, to establish probable cause. If Hunter’s computer was illegally hacked, seems to me that that would be the fruit of the poisonous tree to use the old law school expression. Not sure about all this. Just my speculation. May depend on who did the hacking.

[MDlaxfan76]

A story in the Free Beacon as reported to them by Gary Shapley? Two unimpeachable sources. Forgive me, but I don’t see a Pulitzer in the paper's future for this story. Shapely is the same guy who got canned from the Hunter IRS investigation for showing evident bias. Shapely is pretty clearly anti-Biden, if not full on MAGA.

Even if you take this story at face value, there are some rather significant holes. Hunter claimed he was hacked. Did the FBI investigate that and, if so, what did they find? Hunter is suing Rudy over the hacking and other issues. Presumably a lot of questions will be answered in that lawsuit about the laptop.

I’ve learned how to investigate crimes by watching TV. I have never actually investigated a crime. I suspect the FBI has a bit more training and experience in this regard than I do. If I can think of such things as DNA, fingerprints, and signature authentication, I suspect the FBI can as well.

Sure makes sense to me that the FBI would’ve checked into all those things. Did they fail to find his DNA or fingerprints on the laptop or on the receipt from the blind guy’s computer shop? If so, why hasn’t that been leaked out? Did they try to authenticate Hunter’s “signature" on the receipt? What were the results of that?

As I've said, I'm not a computer expert, but I think if you hack a computer, upload the contents, then download them onto another computer that second computer's hard drive will contain all of the hacked computer's contents and will be "authentic" as to the second computer.

So what did the FBI do to "authenticate" the laptop? Had they run down the hacking possibility before doing so?

"Federal prosecutors knew that no content on the Hunter Biden hard drive was fabricated prior to the 2020 election, according to a memo Shapley prepared on Oct. 22, 2020 and provided to the House Ways and Means Committee. Content on the hard drive were exact matches to files authorities had obtained from a search warrant of Hunter Biden’s iCloud account, the memo states."

The first sentence isn't accurate as it is pretty clear now that stuff (not Hunter's) was added to the laptop, that is, stuff that can't be independently verified as genuinely Hunter's. Yes, some of the content is genuine, but not all of it.

"We have no reason to believe there is anything fabricated nefariously on the computer and or hard drive," the memo states. "There are emails and other items that corroborate the items on the laptop and hard drive."

Notwithstanding what they may have believed, some of the stuff on the laptop was fabricated. Sounds like they only compared the hard drive to the computer, but didn't try to independently verify all of the contents.

First I've heard of these financial records (credit card receipts?) in Delaware. Let's see that stuff. I think it is pretty much undisputed that Hunter was living at California in April 2019. He met someone and married her in California the following month. Could he have flown to Delaware and taken a laptop into a repair shop in April? In theory, sure. But why wouldn’t he take his computer to a California repair shop where he lived? Why would he fly all the way across the country, drop off the laptop, then fly back to California? Again, in theory that is possible, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I agree that there would very, very likely be forensic evidence from Hunter on the computer if it was actually his. That this hasn't been found, or even claimed to have been found, puts a heck of doubt as to whether it's actually his computer. And if it isn't his, then the doubt about the veracity of any individual piece of information from that laptop goes through the roof. So, if a specific piece of information can't be confirmed as accurate by other means, it should have zero weight, and certainly won't be able to be used in court.

Beyond that, OCanada is right that the chain of custody (mishandling) of the laptop creates immense doubt about any specific piece of information unless it can be otherwise confirmed without such doubts. Yes, some (not 99%) of the information has been confirmed that way...but none of it is damaging to Joe Biden.

So...we now have Rudy...the guy who is losing his law license and may go to jail for his flat-out lies on behalf of Trump, falsely claiming specific acts by others that he knew were untrue. That's the guy who handled the laptop...

So, why, youth, are you having such difficulty understanding that the laptop is hugely suspect and won't be useful in any court proceeding?