Hunter Biden laptop

[Richard Smith]

Yes. It was his laptop. But the points you keep dodging are:

1. Did someone else modify the contents of his laptop?
2. If not, how could we possibly know this?

No one modified the contents.  Do you think the videos of Hunter with the prostitutes and smoking crack are a Hunter "double"?  Do you think the emails that he sent and received can't be tracked or checked against the recipients and servers?  Do you think it is not possible for the FBI and US intelligence agencies to verify the contents of a laptop or determine if they have been fabricated?  Do you think the leftists who have covered this story up prior to the election would have hesitated for one second to release any evidence indicating that the contents of this laptop were faked by someone?  The leftist media like the NY Times have verified the contents of the laptop.  Numerous other leftist media sources have done the same.  Not a single one has suggested there is an iota of evidence to indicate that anyone altered the contents of the laptop.  It is really far out, tin foil hat nonsense at this point to still be peddling that baseless conspiracy theory. 

[Joe Elliott]

No one modified the contents.  Do you think the videos of Hunter with the prostitutes and smoking crack are a Hunter "double"?  Do you think the emails that he sent and received can't be tracked or checked against the recipients and servers?  Do you think it is not possible for the FBI and US intelligence agencies to verify the contents of a laptop or determine if they have been fabricated?  Do you think the leftists who have covered this story up prior to the election would have hesitated for one second to release any evidence indicating that the contents of this laptop were faked by someone?  The leftist media like the NY Times have verified the contents of the laptop.  Numerous other leftist media sources have done the same.  Not a single one has suggested there is an iota of evidence to indicate that anyone altered the contents of the laptop.  It is really far out, tin foil hat nonsense at this point to still be peddling that baseless conspiracy theory.

Here is what a Wikipedia article had to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Aftermath_and_veracity_concerns

Forensic analysis
In March 2022, The Washington Post published the findings of two forensic information analysts it had retained to examine 217 gigabytes of data provided to the paper on a hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey, who represented that its contents came from the laptop. One of the analysts characterized the data as a "disaster" from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Hunter Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence that people other than Biden had accessed and written files to the drive, both before and after the New York Post story.[6] In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names "Biden Burisma," "Big Guy File," "Salacious Pics Package" and "Hunter. Burisma Documents." One of the analysts found evidence someone may have accessed the drive contents from a West Coast location days after The New York Post published their stories about the laptop.[6]

Using cryptographic signatures to analyze the roughly 129,000 emails on the drive, one analysis was able to verify that 1,828 of the emails came from the indicated email accounts of origin, suggesting they were authentic and had not been tampered with; the other analysis was able to verify nearly 22,000 emails using similar methods, after overcoming technical issues the first analysis could not resolve. The analysts said emails from Burisma, where Pozharskyi was an advisor, were likely authentic, but cautioned that if Burisma had been hacked, it would be possible for hackers to use stolen cryptographic signatures to forge emails that would pass as authentic. The New York Times reported in January 2020 that Russian military intelligence had hacked Burisma beginning in November 2019; a co-founder of the firm that discovered the hacking said Russians were stealing email credentials. Both analysts acknowledged that cryptographic signatures are not a perfect way to authenticate emails, as some email services do not implement the technology as rigorously as others. About 16,000 of the 22,000 emails carrying cryptographic signatures came via Google, which rigorously implements the technology. The analysts noted that cryptographic signatures can only verify that an email originated from a certain email account, but not who controlled that account; there are other means for hackers to commandeer email accounts of others. According to the Washington Post, "Some other emails on the drive that have been the foundation for previous news reports could not be verified because the messages lacked verifiable cryptographic signatures."[6]

Among the emails that The Washington Post was able to authenticate was the Pozharskyi email that formed the basis of the New York Post's original article. An email referencing "10 held by H for the big guy?," an apparent reference to a rejected proposal to give Joe Biden a 10% share of a Chinese deal his son was negotiating, was not authenticated, though a recipient of the email publicly vouched for its authenticity.[6]

One of the analysts found that timestamps on documents and in operating system indexes matched, though he noted hackers could forge timestamps in undetectable ways. The analysts also noted that the drive had been handled in such a way that logs and other files used by forensic analysts to examine system activity had been repeatedly deleted. Neither analyst found evidence emails or other files had been manipulated by hackers, nor could they rule out that possibility.[6][56]

An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden had the laptop.[57][58] Matt Tait, a cybersecurity expert and former information security specialist for the U.K.'s Government Communications Headquarters, reviewed the analysis and said "it is clear the cache isn't in its original form."[59]

In November 2022, CBS News published the results of a forensic analysis they commissioned of a copy of the laptop data Mac Isaac initially handed to federal investigators in 2019. The analysis, conducted by Computer Forensics Services, found "no evidence that the user data had been modified, fabricated or tampered with", and found no new files created on the laptop after April 2019, when Mac Isaac received the laptop. The chief technology officer of Computer Forensics Services added: "I have no doubt in my mind that this data was created by Hunter Biden, and that it came from a computer under Mr. Biden's control".[60]

Different experts have different opinions on whether the laptop was modified or not after Hunter turned it into the repair shop. Using common sense, I don't think it was Hunter Biden who created files in folders labeled "Biden Burisma," "Big Guy File," "Salacious Pics Package" and "Hunter. Burisma Documents". Clearly, someone other than Hunter Biden modified the contents of that laptop. And computer experts could modify the laptop and other servers to make it appear it contained valid emails. I doubt this would be beyond Russian capabilities.

[Richard Smith]

Despite federal laws that protect the confidentiality of tax returns, Dems spent years attempting to obtain President Trump's taxes.  They never alleged that he had committed any type of tax crime and, of course, Trump had submitted his tax returns to the IRS for their review.  The IRS never took or suggested there was any tax crime committed by Trump.  But the Dems were able to use the legal system (with liberal judges) to illegally obtain the returns.  And now, still in the absence of any claim of a tax crime, have released information from his tax returns to the public in what is clearly a politically driven attempt to embarrass Trump.  A gross abuse of power.   And what do we learn?  That in one recent year Trump - using the lawful exemptions enacted by Congress - lawfully paid no income tax.  As do few in his income bracket due to the loopholes provided by Congress for the wealthy. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Despite federal laws that protect the confidentiality of tax returns, Dems spent years attempting to obtain President Trump's taxes.  They never alleged that he had committed any type of tax crime and, of course, Trump had submitted his tax returns to the IRS for their review.  The IRS never took or suggested there was any tax crime committed by Trump.  But the Dems were able to use the legal system (with liberal judges) to illegally obtain the returns.  And now, still in the absence of any claim of a tax crime, have released information from his tax returns to the public in what is clearly a politically driven attempt to embarrass Trump.  A gross abuse of power.   And what do we learn?  That in one recent year Trump - using the lawful exemptions enacted by Congress - lawfully paid no income tax.  As do few in his income bracket due to the loopholes provided by Congress for the wealthy.

Trump (since 2016): I will gladly release my tax returns but I can't as they are under audit. As soon as the audit is over I will make them public (obviously I am paraphrasing)

Jan 6th Committee (2022): The record shows there never was an audit....

If anybody embarrasses Trump, it's Trump himself.

But the Dems were able to use the legal system (with liberal judges) to illegally obtain the returns.

Really? You can obtain returns illegally by using the legal system?

Do you ever think before you write something as stupid as that?

[Joe Elliott]

But the Dems were able to use the legal system (with liberal judges) to illegally obtain the returns.

Really? You can obtain returns illegally by using the legal system?

Do you ever think before you write something as stupid as that?

If I can answer for Richard, the answer is no.

Or better yet, if a judge orders tax returns to be obtain, it is still illegal, if Richard believes it should be illegal. No matter what that judge or any judge says.

Martin, I hope this clears it up for you. It certainly doesn't for me.

. . .

At best, one can give the opinion that the judge was in error. But not that the judge acted illegally. Even if a higher court overrules him, the judge did not do anything illegal. He would have just made an error in his legal judgment.

. . .

Another point I would like to make, the tax returns were collected by authorized people, at the order of a judge.

It's not like laptop is analyzed by someone who is not a member of law enforcement, who was not authorized to act by some judge, whether rightly or in error, but was possessed by a shop owner who could have altered the laptop. Or asked the Russians to alter it for him. That should be no problem for a court trial, it should still be considered sterling evidence.

And yet using the tax returns is completely illegal. While using this laptop as evidence is totally above board.

[Richard Smith]

Trump (since 2016): I will gladly release my tax returns but I can't as they are under audit. As soon as the audit is over I will make them public (obviously I am paraphrasing)

Jan 6th Committee (2022): The record shows there never was an audit....

If anybody embarrasses Trump, it's Trump himself.

But the Dems were able to use the legal system (with liberal judges) to illegally obtain the returns.

Really? You can obtain returns illegally by using the legal system?

Do you ever think before you write something as stupid as that?

LOL.  Here in America (the country that pays for the defense of "Europe") there is a federal law that precludes the disclosure of tax returns for privacy reasons.  That is one of the reasons, for example, that the tax returns of even a double murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald have never been made public despite being the assassin of the US President.  But in the case of the actual President, the tax returns were obtained via a liberal judge and disclosed to the public for political reasons.  And what do we learn?  Trump was in compliance with the tax laws enacted by our corrupt Congress which often permit the wealthiest to pay no taxes.  Does anyone in the US voluntarily pay more taxes than they owe under our corrupt tax code?  Absolutely not.  Not Trump or anyone else.  This is the net result of years of litigation.

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  Here in America (the country that pays for the defense of "Europe") there is a federal law that precludes the disclosure of tax returns for privacy reasons.  That is one of the reasons, for example, that the tax returns of even a double murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald have never been made public despite being the assassin of the US President.  But in the case of the actual President, the tax returns were obtained via a liberal judge and disclosed to the public for political reasons.  And what do we learn?  Trump was in compliance with the tax laws enacted by our corrupt Congress which often permit the wealthiest to pay no taxes.  Does anyone in the US voluntarily pay more taxes than they owe under our corrupt tax code?  Absolutely not.  Not Trump or anyone else.  This is the net result of years of litigation.

What happened to you? Did somebody drop you on your head when you were a kid?

What will it take for a fanatic like you to ever understand that you are not part of the solution? You're not even part of the problem, you (and others like you) are the problem!

If there is a difference between people like you and extreme fanatics like the Taliban, I don't see it.

[Richard Smith]

Hunter needs a new lawyer since his current one just inadvertantely confirmed (not that there was any doubt) that the contents of the laptop are his:

“Backing up Mr. Biden’s files for any repair did not require Mr. Mac Isaac to review the contents of any such files,” a lawyer for Biden wrote. “Mr. Biden did not consent to Mr. Mac Isaac gaining access to the content of those files in April 2019 or at any other time.”