If only Roger Collins was here to provide his legal insight! Of course, a countersuit is a "suit." There is no point in making such a distinction except to deflect. You don't understand the obvious point. Hunter, Ukraine Joe, and the leftist media contended that the laptop and its contents were the product of Russian disinformation. Now Hunter is alleging that his privacy has been invaded because the contents of the laptop were made available. How is it an invasion of his privacy unless the laptop and its contents are his? He can't have it both ways. HA HA HA. Such idiocy is amusing.
The FBI has had the computer for many years. You don't think that the FBI could determine if the contents of the laptop were tampered with? The guy who owns the computer shop is smarter than the entire resources of the FBI and concocted this whole plot? Wow. This guy would be in a maximum security prison if there was a scintilla of evidence that he tampered with the contents. And of course, if you believe the contents were manufactured to frame Hunter for a crime, then by implication you must accept that the contents of the laptop prove crimes were committed by Hunter. The entire purpose of the fakery. So you apparently agree that the laptop proves crimes by the Biden family. Lastly, the civil aspects of this case are not important even if Hunter had a real case. It is the criminal component that has relevance. Many people have been convicted for crimes because their computers contained evidence of a crime. The fact that a computer store guy brought evidence of a crime to the attention of the FBI does negate the ability of law enforcement to use the contents to prosecute Biden, Inc. Hunter abandoned his property at the computer store. He never picked it up or contacted the guy. He signed a contract. The only thing keeping him out of prison is the corrupt political justice system.
Well, I said you wouldn't understand what I was saying and it turns out I was right.
You don't understand the obvious point. Yes, I do... and it's a pathetically stupid point.
Hunter, Ukraine Joe, and the leftist media contended that the laptop and its contents were the product of Russian disinformation. This demonstrably false, Hunter and Joe Biden never made any such claim and all the media did was speculate, just like the crazy right wing media did when they claimed there was incriminating material on the laptop.
Now Hunter is alleging that his privacy has been invaded because the contents of the laptop were made available. As a matter of law he is correct. Mac Isaac has no legal right to copy and distribute Hunter's private information.
How is it an invasion of his privacy unless the laptop and its contents are his? He can't have it both ways. HA HA HA. Such idiocy is amusing. You still haven't figured it out. All Hunter is saying in the lawsuit is that some of his private files were on the laptop. He does not say he owns the laptop. It isn't all that difficult to understand, yet you seem to be struggling again.
Anyway, since Hunter never claimed ownership of the laptop, your stupid question is moot
The FBI has had the computer for many years. You don't think that the FBI could determine if the contents of the laptop were tampered with? Maybe they can, but I doubt they would be able to tell if files have been added. In any event, as no charges have been filed against Hunter Biden after so many years there simply may not be anything incriminating on the laptop after all.
So you apparently agree that the laptop proves crimes by the Biden family. I don't know what's on the laptop and neither do you, but Hunter Biden or anybody of the Biden family not being charged with crimes seems to suggest there isn't anything incriminating there. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions based on speculation and wishful thinking.
It is the criminal component that has relevance.What criminal component? There isn't any, except perhaps in your imagination. No criminal charges being filed = no criminal component exists. But even if there was one, the fact that evidence may have been obtained illegally (as may well be the case here) could have a serious negative impact on any criminal case. But that's just theory, as there is no criminal case.
Many people have been convicted for crimes because their computers contained evidence of a crime. Sure, but in those cases that evidence was found as part of a lawful investigation. In this case a hard drive was sent to several third parties by a guy who had no legal right to do so. You can not conduct a lawful investigation based on fruit of a poisonous tree.
The fact that a computer store guy brought evidence of a crime to the attention of the FBI does negate the ability of law enforcement to use the contents to prosecute Biden, Inc.Let's just wait what the outcome of the civil case is. If what Mac Isaac did was illegal, the laptop and it's contents is tainted forever. This isn't just a matter of a law abiding citizen providing evidence to law enforcement. This is a guy who made copies of private files and passed them on to a right wing newspaper as well as third parties like Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon. No law abiding person does this! And btw, how would a computer shop guy even be able to determine what constitutes a crime in the first place and why would he sent a copy of the hard drive inside a stuffed animal to his father in New Mexico ?
The only thing keeping him out of prison is the corrupt political justice system.I see you've already "solved" the case again before you know all the factual circumstances and actual evidence. Now, why am I not surprised?