Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 66,227
- 16,729
- 2,190
I’m not denying that there is evidence against Hunter. I’ll leave that to the authorities to determine. And yes the history of how the laptop got recovered is very relevant to this discussion as I’m saying it sounds like it was planted and you’re flat out denying that it was. Chain of custody of evidence is extremely important, especially when your talking about the kind of material that we are talking about. Add on top of it the timing of the story, just before an election, come on man, open your eyes.The laptop is not “obviously” a plant. It isn’t a plant at all.
You may not need to imagine what your point is. But you’re making it so poorly, it isn’t clear to others.
If you wish to deny that there is any actual evidence of Hunter criminality in the already vetted laptop, nobody is stopping you. But your continuing error is obvious. “Evidence” is not a synonym for “proof” nor even for “probable cause to arrest.”
The history of how the laptop got recovered is absolutely and totally and completely irrelevant. Why? Because it either is Hunter’s laptop or it isn’t. And the forensic investigation of the contents of the laptop is so clear that there is not really any remaining question about that. It IS Hunter’s laptop. And the documents and images within it are not fakes or planted. They are Hunter’s texts, etc., and genuine images of Hunter.
I understand that you don’t like those facts. But as the saying goes: “it is what it is.”