A Way to Determine Whether the NY Post has a Trove of Hunter Biden's Emails

Some of Hunter's more innocuous emails might be checked with recipients.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

SNOPES writes about the story of Hunter Biden's emails detailing influence-peddling:

It also raised questions about whether the emails, upon which the story's entire premise is based, were real. Some even questioned whether the laptop itself actually belonged to Hunter Biden.

At first, I thought that the photos were a bit gratuitous for the NY Post to publish, but they do greatly increase the probability that the trove of emails was originally from a device owned by Hunter Biden. If there really are thousands of emails, it would seem to be an answerable question whether the NY Post has a trove of genuine Hunter Biden's emails.

Surely, Hunter Biden must have emailed some people who are either TRump [Trump] supporters or honest Democrats who could verify at least a couple of the more innocuous emails.

Simply find some non-sensitive emails sent to or received from other people or businesses that might not be inclined to lie or hide information to help Biden. Then contact the other parties and inform them that you have an email to or from them sent around a particular date with the subject line "[quote the subject line]." Then ask that, if they can locate that email, would they please send a copy of it to the NY Post to compare it to the copy of the email that the Post has?

Of course, the FBI could probably easily determine whether some of the emails are authentic—and it probably already has. The FBI or the Justice Department could disclose whether the trove includes real emails from Hunter Biden, without accusing him of wrongdoing or disclosing anything about what might or might not have happened in any grand jury.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Fifth Rule of Court Packing Depends How Republicans Handle it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s with “TRump”? Is this the new “drump” or something? I can’t keep current on the tds nicknames.

    1. I think it’s probably just a typo, like “Hunter ‘s Biden’s” in the title.

      1. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month.PPA The younger brother was out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….

        So I started……………………. Click here

    2. Jim Lindgren, noted TDS sufferer.

      You’re not doing great about your intellectual ability to engage, even with people who agree with you.

    3. Just a typo. Friday afternoon corrected that and the one in the title.

      1. Not just a typo. It’s a very well-known, very common low-brow jab at Trump. Rump. Huhuhuhuh!

        And it wasn’t corrected, it was only crossed out. That way, the jab could still be visible to the other low-rent automatons who share that kind of juvenile kinship so prevalent among the “progressive” set.

        1. LOL, the progressive big tent is getting bigger every day!

          1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Zxc I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

            what I do………………………………Visit Here

        2. Yeah, good point, Trump and his supporters would never stoop to name-calling.

    4. tRump as in he’s a big asshole with tiny hands. Also it’s Drumpf (origin the Stephen Colbert show), get your memes right, sir!

    5. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Sdm I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

      what I do………Visit Here

  2. How do we know they are real? The people at the FBI sat on them and buried them.

    The lead agent was involved with Carter Page, the hilariously bad Michigan militia/Whitmer entrapment and this. Weird coincidinks!

    1. Tell me about ” the hilariously bad Michigan militia/Whitmer entrapment,” please!

      1. The one where the BLM activist. Never Trumper, and friends were instigated and riled up by a paid FBI informant just in time for an election?

        1. I like how you ran out of liberal “organizations” you can name so you just defaulted to “friends.”

          1. I was being precise. There was one BLM activist and one a Never Trumper.

            I’m sorry if being precise hurts your feelings.

            1. In fact, you’re just pushing nonsense because there were neither. They are, to a person, Trump supporters and whites supremacists.

              1. “An anarchist who allegedly plotted to kidnap and potentially kill Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) previously referred to President Donald Trump as an “enemy” and a “tyrant,” according to old recordings reportedly posted to YouTube.”

                https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/militia-member-who-plotted-to-kidnap-gov-whitmer-reportedly-called-trump-an-enemy-and-tyrant-in-videos

                I always refer to people I support as a “tyrant,” I’m sure you do too.

                1. Hilarious. You assholes come on here everyday talking Civil War this and Repercussions that, but when one of the somehow even nuttier jackasses among you tries something you all start pointing at The Left! Bunch of pussies who don’t even have the guts to jerk each other off in person. Piss off.

                  1. Please don’t tell us about your personal male fantasies. It is bad enough when you make up phony stuff to support your ‘position’ but we do not want to hear about the things you daydream about.

                1. If a person attends a single George Floyd anti-police-violence rally a few days after Floyd’s shocking death, that tars them as a lifelong BLM true believer. Ok, gotcha.

            2. Where’s the info about one of them being a BLM activist?

              I know they were virulently anti-Trump, anti-police, and anti-government anarchists in general. YouTube tried to delete their content before anyone could see it, but some folks grabbed videos before they were gone.

    2. Team Rudy has a *copy* of the hard drive which, if it was done right, is pretty solid. See below on header data.

      1. You’re back! Wondering if you and Loki had run off.

  3. Though mixing in requested e-mails with an existing trove of hacked e-mails is pretty much Russian disinformation 101.

    1. You beat me to it. (By 19 minutes, apparently.) Of course some of the emails would be real, but that doesn’t mean that all of them are. (I would add that talking about photos showing sex and drugs was probably more about getting attention for the story than anything else.)

      Also, apparently it’s believed that emails were hacked or stolen from the Burisma end, so showing us emails from that side that are legitimate wouldn’t tell us whether they were obtained from a Hunter Biden laptop or not. We’d need purely domestic emails to conduct Prof. Lindgren’s test even for its limited value.

      1. They have a mirror image of Biden’s laptop.

        1. They claim to have an image of something they claim is Biden’s laptop, which is not even remotely the same thing.

      2. Which ones were from the Burisma end?

        And by that you mean sent from that end to Hunter, thats kinda how email works.

      3. David Nieporent : Also, apparently it’s believed that emails were hacked or stolen from the Burisma end

        That’s the account I’m reading as well : The FBI is investigating the laptop, but as a foreign intelligence operation. That spares us from the ludicrous story of Hunter loading a laptop with humiliating pictures of himself and then giving it to a blind computer repairman (so pro-Trump he’ll do whatever Giuliani says, then refuse to answer when Rudy said it). Would that repairman be a stand-up guy in front of a grand jury? I doubt it.

        So the emails were hacked, the laptop is a fraud, and the White House is involved up to their eyeballs. Apparently Trump was warned by the FBI a foreign government would attempt to channel disinformation thru Giuliani. I wonder if Rudy would go to prison for Trump?

        It also means the any specific email is worthless, since you can’t count on Russian Intelligence for 100% journalistic integrity. One final point : If this garbage somehow does result in a Trump victory, I bet impeachment proceeding closely follow. Trump skated in the first collusion inquiry because they couldn’t establish he was involved. That won’t be a problem here. He skated in the second collusion case because his plans “didn’t work”. That won’t work here. Third time’s the charm.

        1. The same FBI that used Russian disinfo to spy on candidate and President Trump? Or a different one?

          1. Well, Trump can try that as a defense and see where it get’s him. Here’s what’s ironic : We’re watchin a foreign (probably Russian) operation in real time. The computer repairman cover story was clownishly bad & will inevitably fall apart. And this time there is no doubt the White House is hardwired into the plot as a eager participant. Plausible deniability is implausible here.

            Can you really not see that? I doubt you’re that blind. But still you respond with “deep state” gibberish while unfolding events prove your every word is an empty lie. Don’t wanna be critical, but that’s embarassing….

            1. So….you’re saying that a president can do sophisticated things with the entire national security apparatus behind him…like procure a fake birth certificate?

              1. mad_kalak : So….you’re saying that a president can do sophisticated things with the entire national security apparatus behind him…like procure a fake birth certificate?

                (1). You look like a fool bringing up “fake birth certificates”, but your call.

                (2). I don’t think there’s much sophistication involved here. The buffoonish cover story is clear proof of that. Russian Intelligence hacked Hunter Biden’s emails, created a faux-laptop adding humiliating photos of HB they had procured & seeding the mix with a few phony emails – then had a ringer walk it into the shop of a blind (Trump-cultist) computer repairman.

                The last part was probably Giuliani’s doing – one suspects his foreign handlers ain’t so clumsy. The first part was no different than the Russians hacking Podesta back in 2016. Probably packaging the laptop required some skill, but the FSB has a good reputation for that sort of thing.

                Speaking of Podesta, funny how history repeats itself. The Russians stole a massive trove of his email then sat on their spoils for over six months. They only released the first batch after the Access Hollywood scandal broke – within an hour after the first accounts of Access were posted online. They waited until their boy Trump was in trouble and needed help.

                Same thing now. They must really like Trump……

                1. Look Obama was born in Hawaii I think, but if people can believe that a president can use his resources to fake a Hunter Biden’s emails (conveniently) why do they *not* think that Obama could fake a birth certificate?

                  1. No one thinks it’s the President’s resources at work…

                  2. Advice for mad_kalak : Doubling down on Stupid only makes you look twice as dumb. Trump only trafficked in Birtherism because he thought the dupes & rubes would eat that shit up. What’s your excuse?

                    Per headlines today the FBI is investigating the “Hunter Biden Emails” as a foreign intelligence operation. Get back to me when anyone more substantive than Bozo the Clown investigates Birtherism. Maybe package your reply with the latest shocking info on Bigfoot …..

                  3. My advice for grb….relax! Your tiresome vitriol means took the bait of an obvious joke meant to point out your motivated reasoning (it worked). Nobody with rational outlook would ascribe it as some sort of serious birtherism.

                    1. If writing off your embarrassing comment as a “joke” gets you clear of further error, I’m all for it. Your comments here are full of such “jokes”. Hell, almost all your comments are jokish.

                      Why not write them all off that way?

                    2. Because it was obviously a joke, and you’re acting like a kid caught with his hand in cookie jar now.

                      I realize that sarcasm and satire on the internet are difficult to decipher at times, but ML got the joke (which could have cued you based on his comment coming before yours.)

                      And like I said, it was also bait, which you with your “why so serious” face took.

                    3. Hey – The more laughter-breaks in our internet warfare the better.
                      I can be funny too (I think).

                    4. Okay then lessee…here’s one from a favorite movie…Jesus walking into a motel with three nails, and says “can you put me up for the night?”

                      Thanks.

            2. You think this is more clownish than the pee tapes that led to 4 FISA warrants?

              1. You do know there was a tape, right Sam?

                From Mueller’s report :

                “Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know” (10/30/16 Text Message). Rtskhiladze & Cohen testified the “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. (Rtskhiladze 4/4/18 302, at 12) Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. (Cohen 9/12/18 302, at 13) Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen. (Rtskhiladze 5/10/18 302, at 7)

                I think the “pee” part was spice added in the telling by the time the story reached Steele’s ear as gossip. However maybe it was part of the Rtskhiladze / Cohen tape and Mueller was just too delicate to mention urine.

                Now, I’m willing to accept that tape was bogus, though it was still a cause of concern and damage control during the secret business negotiations between Trump & the Kremlin (held during the ’16 campaign and hidden from the American public)

                Why not return the favor here, Sam? You’ll surely feel better if you do. You can find the Muller Report quote above on pages 239-240

                https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

                1. So you don’t think pee tapes are more clownish than a crackhead leaving his laptop at a repair shop. Even though that crackheads lawyer tried to get the tapes back in the past day or so.

                  1. Did you really not know the sex tape was real? I have a hard time guessing when your “information deficit” is real or pretend.

                    1. A tape with hookers peeing on Trump in a Russian hotel is not real.

        2. Why would Russia want to help Trump?

          Low oil prices *hurt* Russia, which needs to sell its own oil. Middle Eastern oil that the US doesn’t import competes with markets for Russian oil.

          Fracked Natural Gas and exported US LNG *hurts* Russia, which wants to sell its own natural gas to Western Europe. Trump was outright telling European leaders to buy US LNG instead of Russian gas.

          So, logically, Putin would want Biden to win.

          1. Dr. Ed 2 : Why would Russia want to help Trump?

            Let’s try the simplest theory : Wouldn’t you want your primary enemy to be ruled by a bungling doltish buffoon-clown? This is particularly true if you thought his narcissism and butt-hurt insecurities would damage relationships with U.S. allies and NATO.

            Also, there are many examples of Putin simply trying to humiliate and discredit democracy itself. How better than help the election of a non-stop national-disgrace humiliation like Trump?

            1. Wow, you are really invested in these fever dreams. Wild unproven conspiracies requiring a vast number of us intelligence personnel unable to discern what is or isnt russian propaganda and/or unable to prove it ever happened in 2016.

      4. David Nieporent and grb,

        Well this is an interesting, yet baseless, conspiracy theory that you guys are cooking up. Now instead of engaging you in good faith, I ask where your evidence is for this conspiracy, point out that you have none, mock the idea mercilessly and tell you to take off your tin foil hat. It’s quite pathetic that you would desperately try to distract from the substance of these allegations and the documentary evidence supporting them by spinning conspiracy theories, without evidence.

        Am I doing it right?

        1. 1. What allegations? That Hunter once smoked crack? That he introduced someone to his father sometime & somewhere for some unspecific second of time? Your crap is barely relevant if real. If it’s disinformation from a foreign government – some mix of truth & lies – its miniscule value plummets precipitously.

          2. I’m just repeating accounts of what the FBI is said to believe. Those accounts may be wrong, but I bet not. They are far more likely than the garbage nonsense you claim to believe, with its blind computer repairman slavish Trump devotee.

          3. If those accounts from the FBI are correct, this will all out. Are you sure you wanna stake a strong position on the goofy mess of a story you defend ?!?

          1. Please link to “those accounts from the FBI” or kindly shut up.

            As for the rest of your wildly inaccurate blather, my comment here from the beginning is that the emails smell fishy and could be fake, and that details of the NY Post story are hard to believe.

            1. Your kindness (even in telling me to shut up) will be reciprocated. If you did express rational skepticism re the Repairman Story, I salute your sagacity. I’ll split the links into individual comments

              https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-examining-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-are-linked-foreign-n1243620

              Money Quote : Federal investigators are examining whether the emails allegedly describing activities by Joe Biden and his son Hunter and found on a laptop at a Delaware repair shop are linked to a foreign intelligence operation, two people familiar with the matter told NBC News.

              1. That would be the FBI cooperating with the MSM to get Biden elected by any means necessary. The FBI has supposedly had the computer itself for 6 months. They already know they’re real- which is why they’ve been sitting on them.

                1. Uh huh. If you’re dupe enough to believe the Trump-Fanatic Blind Repairman story, I guess convincing yourself of this is pretty easy. Tell us, Gospace : Do you typically go ’round your acquaintances, ask to see pictures they’ve taken of you, pick out the ones most embarrassing & humiliating, and then load them on your personal laptop? No? But you think that’s what Hunter Biden did…..

                  Obviously you don’t think at all. Probably hadn’t tried thinking these past four years. Maybe you’ll give it a shot again after Biden’s inauguration.

                  In 2016, Russian Intelligence leaked emails stolen from Clinton associate John Podesta to help Trump. Per Mueller, they put out first batch within a hour of the Access Hollywood story appearing online. Trump’s campaign was in trouble, then as now. They tried to help their boy, then as now. But there are differences this time :

                  (1) Everyone knows what’s happening by previous experience.

                  (2) They decided to forego a simple leak for that reason. But their cover story is as dumb, clumsy, lame, and stupid as any ever recorded in spy craft. I blame Giuliani. I doubt his handlers are so inept.

                  (3) It’s also destined to fall apart.

                  (4) So all the cultists will be whining about a new “Russian Hoax” for their ex-president orange-deity well into the foreseeable future. Good luck with that.

                  (5) Also : This time around there’s zero doubt on the issue of collusion with a foreign intelligence operation. The White House is clearly a willing participant and co-conspirator. The only question is how to form the charges. How would you do it?

                  1. “Do you typically go ’round your acquaintances, ask to see pictures they’ve taken of you, pick out the ones most embarrassing & humiliating, and then load them on your personal laptop? No? But you think that’s what Hunter Biden did…..”

                    People do store embarrassing selfies in their laptops and online storage.

                    Your other points are mostly irrelevant. If Russia leaked pics of Joe Biden raping a woman with only the intent of “helping” Trump, Biden’s career is over. Guiliani didn’t have to leak anything because the laptop became legal property of the repairman once Hunter failed to pick them up.

                    1. XM, what is the basis in Delaware abandoned property law for your assertion that “the laptop became legal property of the repairman”?

                  2. XM : People do store embarrassing selfies in their laptops and online storage.

                    Righto. I’m sure Hunter said “That picture of me passed out under the covers w/ a crack pipe dangling from my mouth? I really need to get a copy of that for my laptop!!”

                    You cultists will believe anything, won’t you? Here another test of your gullibility : Today Rudy Giuliani said there was only a 50/50 chance the person feeding him this garbage, Andrii Derkach, is a Russian spy. So do you think those odds are legit, or does Rudy have a thumb on the scales for his Moscow handlers?

                    “When asked if he was worried that the information he had provided to The New York Post as part of its recent series of reports about stolen data from a hard drive that supposedly belonged to Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was the result of the 2019 hacking of Ukrainian natural-gas company Burisma Holdings, where the younger Biden served on the board beginning in 2014, Giuliani told the outlet it “wouldn’t matter,” and asked “what’s the difference?”

                    But ….. But ….. I thought Hunter dropped off his laptop at the local Trump-Fanatic Blind Computer Repairman? Seems even Giuliani doesn’t take that ludicrous crap seriously. Rudy also offered this : “Sure, sure. The president knows all about this”

                    Something to remember when it’s time to press charges.

                    https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-said-theres-a-chance-he-worked-with-russian-spy-2020-10

                    1. Ahhh … a link to businessinsider.com ….. so you also use dkos and huffpoo for backup, I suppose

                    2. Jack,

                      In your sweaty desperate panic, you didn’t notice I was quoting Giuliani’s own interview words, which you find in news sources everywhere. When the President’s burnt-out husk of an attorney practically confesses to collusion with Russian Intelligence, it tends to get reported. Wanna read Rudy on his spy-pal in another publication? Here :

                      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/giuliani-says-hes-been-laughing-his-head-off-over-hunter-biden-scandal

                      Incidentally, google Andrii Derkach and you find Rudy’s odds aren’t on the up&up. Trump’s own Treasury Department says he’s a Russian agent. Here’s the question for all the lawyers in this forum : Aiding a Russian spy channel disinformation into this country is probably a crime, but I’m not sure what. But when you add faux-laptops and warm-body ringers walking into Trump-Fanatic Blind Computer Repairman shops, that’s an foreign intelligence operation right? The criminal liability gets much clearer then…..

              2. Money Quote : Federal investigators are examining whether the emails allegedly describing activities by Joe Biden and his son Hunter and found on a laptop at a Delaware repair shop are linked to a foreign intelligence operation, two people familiar with the matter told NBC News.

                So explain exactly who is claiming what? Your “newsish” link seems to be lacking anything that looks “news”

                (I notice the word ‘allegedly’ has resurfaced. It had fallen from favor for quite a while.)

            2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html

              Money Quote : U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence, according to four former officials familiar with the matter.

              The warnings were based on multiple sources, including intercepted communications, that showed Giuliani was interacting with people tied to Russian intelligence during a December 2019 trip to Ukraine, where he was gathering information that he thought would expose corrupt acts by former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

              The intelligence raised concerns that Giuliani was being used to feed Russian misinformation to the president, the former officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information and conversations.

              Also : Earlier in 2019, U.S. intelligence also had warned in written materials sent to the White House that Giuliani, in his drive for information about the Bidens, was communicating with Russian assets.

              1. Thanks.

                For Biden’s sake, I hope the real answer is that these potentially damning emails are forged, and not just the unverifiable and ultimately irrelevant, “The Russians did it.”

                1. If your Dean were to send you a bunch of emails about courses you never taught and/or didn’t know you would be teaching, wouldn’t you make a “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” inquiry?

                  Likewise if someone mails you a large check for work you didn’t do, “unjust enrichment” and all of that.

                  So if Hunter Biden received these emails — and it’s fairly clear he did — his failure to respond “WTF?!?” speaks volumes.

                  1. It came out today that Biden’s attorney asked for the hard drive back — QED it was his…

                    1. And who besides Rudy Giuliani is telling this little tale?
                      Answer : No one.

                      Yesterday Rudy vividly described Hunter swaying in sotted inebriation as he handed over the laptops – which is strange because he wasn’t there. Maybe you should hold off from buying anything he says, Ed. That’s my advice.

                2. If I had to guess, it’s a mixture of truth & fabrication. Look, without question Hunter Biden looked to score easy money off his daddy’s name. But the NY Post article started with accusations over Shokin, which are an easily debunked fraud. The other day the NY Times ran a massive article on how money spent at Mar-a-Lago buys access to Trump. You can find a dozen stories in that article equal in ugliness to Hunter scoring someone an intro to his father.

                  Or maybe you want potential conflicts of interest? Ivanka in China, Trump Jr. promoting properties in India, Indonesia and Dubai. At the same time Jared Kushner was practically running the presidential transition he was also fighting for his company’s financial survival over a building investment gone spectacularly wrong : 666 Fifth Avenue. Some of the “white knights” he approached for a bailout investment included the former Prime Minister of Qatar, oligarchs in China with ties high up in the Party, and a Saudi Arabian billionaire.

                  I can’t point to anything illegal in any of this, but don’t have to. When it’s the other side you trumpet the presence of potential conflict; when it’s your side you trumpet the lack of criminality.

                  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/10/us/trump-properties-swamp.html

                  1. I’m not talking about the NY Post story as a whole, I’m talking about whether the emails are all genuine, or if on the other hand any of them are forged/altered in any way.

                    If the emails are genuine, it looks bad for Biden because of the Shokin matter, and bad for Democrats on impeachment. Part of the reason to be skeptical about these emails is that they seem to “good” to be true from the Trump side of things.

                    The problem with Biden’s actions regarding Shokin is not so easily debunked. The fact is Biden threatened $1bn in aid to have this guy fired who was investigating – or at least had been investigating – the company where his son sat on the board. He was investigating corruption surrounding licensing matters in 2010 and 2012, and the company itself is widely described as being corrupt. There’s not a situation remotely parallel to this with the Trumps, yet we had the tortured Russia hoax for 3.5 years which I assume you believe was a properly predicated and warranted investigation.

                    The defenses for Biden, or the supposed debunking, are as follows:

                    (1) First, some unspecified people at the IMF and in Europe also did not like Shokin and wanted him fired. Of course they did. This seems unremarkable and not particularly compelling. Of course Biden acted in alignment with others. It’s ludicrous to imagine that he would do otherwise.

                    (2) Second, supposedly Shokin’s Burisma investigation had gone “dormant.” But that is a disputed claim with some evidence on the other side. Moreover, this defense admits the apparently undisputed fact that the Burisma investigations were not resolved at the time. Indeed, Burisma’s US representatives (from a firm where H. Biden also had a board seat) apparently contacted the replacement prosecutor Sevruk within hours of Shokin’s firing, and got a meeting one week later. Over the next year they worked on resolving the cases involving Burisma and its founder, which were finally announced closed a few days before Trump took office: https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/john-buretta-us-important-close-casesagainst-burisma-nikolayzlochevskyiin-legally-sound-manner.html

                    (3) Finally, the overall claim is that Biden had Shokin fired because he wasn’t doing enough to investigate and combat corruption. There’s a sleight of hand used here in shifting from Burisma corruption, to just “corruption” generally. The vague claim appears to be echoed by some aligned parties, but seems to lack concrete support. In any case, there’s a bunch of evidence that Shokin was investigating Burisma corruption pretty aggressively. After he was gone, it was all resolved rather quickly.

                    To boil all this down, nobody should be naive to the fact that “soft” corruption of the type that is not necessarily “illegal” is pervasive and widespread around the globe, as well as more serious and potentially illegal corruption. I have no specific case to make that Biden committed a specific criminal or civil offense. And yet, it is something with enough factual basis to warrant investigation, certainly far more warranted than the Russia hoax.

                    But this widespread soft corruption is just the problem, and it’s a cultural and moral problem, not primarily a legal one. Politicians who stay in D.C. long enough become rich, and it’s not from government salaries. What we have is an overall theme of politicians and all those in their orbit globally focused on peddling influence and enriching themselves, at the overall expense of the public interest of their constituents. Many of them tell themselves they can align the two, and elaborate think tank justifications help them along, but it’s all a big swamp of grift and greed.

                    1. God almighty. Do we really have to review this Shokin imbecility yet again ?!?

                      Please: I beg you to listen, as I hope (once more) to never have to school another Right-type on the most bogus dumbass “scandal” ever fed to uncritical unknowing dupes. Yes, Biden demanded Shokin be fired. This was because :

                      01. That was the order of the President – who wasn’t concerned about Hunter.

                      02. Firing Shokin was a publicly-stated United States foreign policy objective. This had zero to do with Hunter.

                      03. The official State Department position was Shokin had to go. Hunter was irrelevant to this.

                      04. The U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine gave a speech in Odessa demanding Shokin be fired. Hunter was nowhere on his radar screen.

                      05. Firing Shokin was a bi-partisan stance of the U.S. Senate (including Lindsey Graham). Their group letter demanding this action failed to mention Hunter.

                      06. The European Union insisted Shokin be fired. The EU doesn’t care a jot about Hunter.

                      07. A World Bank official policy goal was Shokin had to go. The World Bank didn’t stew over Hunter, then or now.

                      08. The IMF insisted on Shokin’s firing. None of its reasons touched on Hunter.

                      09. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development issued a policy statement demanding Shokin’s ouster. Hunter’s name doesn’t appear in the document.

                      10. There were street demonstration in Ukraine against Shokin alone. Every anti-corruption group in the country insisted he must go. When the prosecutor was finally pushed-out, the Kyiv Post described him as one of the most loathed figures in the entire country. I’m betting little of that was based on Hunter.

                      And yes, Shokin wasn’t investing Burisma – but that hardly matters. I just have to do ask you how pressuring Ukraine re Shokin was about Hunter when it was the President’s order, a established objective of the entire gawdforsaken U.S. government, and a goal shared with the whole frigg’n western world.

                      Nobody existing on this good planet Earth should be so mentally-challenged as to swallow B.S. as STUPID as the Right’s faux Shokin scandal.

                      That includes you, ML.

                    2. Burisma gave all that money to Hunter Biden our of kindness or something. And it was Obama who pressured them to fire him Biden just bragged about it because reasons or something.

                      Sorry but Biden is a crook and everyone including you know it. Lying and telling people not to believe their lying eyes isn’t going to convince anyone. But you keep trying. Good luck with that’ll

                    3. Burisma gave all that money to Hunter Biden our of kindness or something.

                      No, they paid (not “gave”) all that money to Hunter Biden for serving on their board of directors.

                      And it was Obama who pressured them to fire him Biden just bragged about it because reasons or something.

                      Um, yeah. You know that Biden was the vice president at the time, right? Vice presidents don’t have the authority to decide whether to have Dasani or Poland Spring served on Air Force Two, let alone whether to guarantee a billion dollars in loans.

                      Biden bragged about it because, you know, politicians brag about stuff. Hell, Trump keeps trying to take credit for VA Choice even though it was enacted in 2014.

                    4. @David Nieporent: “No, they paid (not “gave”) all that money to Hunter Biden for serving on their board of directors.”

                      And what made Hunter Biden worth that much to them? It certainly was not his experience in the oil business. Perhaps it was his knowledge of and contacts in western financial markets, but there are thousands of people with equal or better qualifications. They hired the one with (what an outsider would assume is) a direct family connection to the President’s office.

                    5. markm23 : And what made Hunter Biden worth that much to them?

                      His name, to be sure. But do you think Hunter Biden was even the ten-thousandth person to get a board position because of his name? Hell, he wasn’t even the first at Burisma. Right before Hunter, the company gave a board position to Aleksander Kwasniewski, a former Polish president. Tell us, markm23, do you think that was for Alek’s experience in the oil business? Or maybe those super-critical ties to the Polish elite?

                      Same time as the above two hires, Burisma seated a new board chairman – Alan Apter, an respected investment banker who has worked in the United States and Europe. They brought in a new executive team and hired established international firms to audit their reserves & financial results. It was “extreme make-over, corporate edition”. Burisma had a dirty reputation and was trying to buy a veneer of respectability. Hunter may have been a second-rate Biden, but he still had the name.

                      You share the same problem with the Senate and its recently issued damp-squib report : There’s absolutely nothing to challenge Joe Biden on re Ukraine, no matter how big a mess his son was. It’s cringe-worthy embarrassing to watch people try & sell the “Shokin Scandal” – it’s so crudely obviously stupidly false. They’re just showing they have nothing by making the attempt.

                    6. grb-

                      01.-10. — Yes, as I already mentioned the Obama administration’s policy was to get Shokin fired, and of course this was in alignment with the groups that are always in alignment such as globalist Euro groups. I already said that. It’s insane to suggest that Biden would ever pull a stunt like this under any other circumstances.

                      Shokin was investigating Burisma, and you’ve done nothing to rebut or debunk anything. The very day Shokin was fired, Burisma’s American muscle team, Blue Star Strategies (look them up), reached out to the replacement prosecutor – within hours – to discuss and settle the case, which they then had a meeting on immediately and settled in a matter of months.

                      You’ll notice that I haven’t made any claim about what’s in Joe Biden’s mind, nor any claim that his stunt to get Shokin fired was all “about Hunter.” What I am describing is the facts and circumstances which look 100x worse than any fact that existed concerning the Trump-Russia hysteria. No, Joe Biden did not wake up one day and get Shokin fired solely because Hunter was pulling down millions in corrupt money. Obviously, the entire situation, from top to bottom, is about corrupt power and money, these moves are political power plays (war by other means) between opposing forces. Hunter looks like a 2 bit player along for the ride, an inept chump, the millions in corrupt money he took are a drop in the bucket of grease for the skids.

                    7. ML : What I am describing is the facts and circumstances which look 100x worse than any fact that existed concerning the Trump-Russia hysteria.

                      Four Points :

                      1. Which Trump-Russia hysteria? Russian intelligence is running an operation in the U.S. right now. Do you honestly think the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman cover will hold? Maybe you take comfort from Rudy Giuliani saying there’s only a 50/50 chance his handler, Andrii Derkach, is a Russian spy. Trump’s own Treasury Department says differently : Derkach is a spy. Also, the FBI warned the White House about him months ago. So here’s one of your problems : At the same time you mouth the party line on “Russian Hoax”, this administration is up to its eyeballs abetting a Russian Intelligence operation against this country. Aren’t you the least embarrassed?

                      2. Here’s another one of your problems : “100x worse than any fact that existed concerning the Trump-Russia hysteria” This you repeat as a devoted cultist, but it’s ludicrously wrong : During the last election, Trump’s campaign manager gave private/secret briefings to (another) Russian spy. Trump carried on secret business negotiations with Kremlin officials throughout the campaign, even while repeatedly lying to the American public about that very subject. Now I could list or or two dozen more facts from the campaign / transition / early presidency, but why bother? Just what’s listed above is 1000X worse than your garbage, which even you admit is phony.

                      3. Another problem? Your painfully awkward weaseling. Take his tin foil hat gibberish : “Obviously, the entire situation, from top to bottom, is about corrupt power and money, these moves are political power plays (war by other means) between opposing forces”

                      Presumably that’s meant to suggest Shokin was fired because of internationalist deep state machinations. Sorry, but you’re full of it. Everybody (including the Ukrainians) wanted the prosecutor fired because he was openly & grotesquely corrupt. You’re just making stuff up to salvage an obviously absurd position.

                      4. Burisma Investigation Money Quote :

                      “However, Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, produced documents to Bloomberg that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.

                      “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko told Bloomberg. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

                      https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/

                      You can only post one link at a time here, otherwise I’d list ALL the fact check sites, because every single damn one of them says there was no active Burisma inquiry. Why don’t you try & find a fact-checker who agrees with you?

      5. Has Hunter denied their authenticity? Seems like that’d be the first thing I’d do if someone tried to blackmail me with fake documentation.

        Ohhhh, he didn’t? Huh. Weird.

        1. I don’t think you know what “blackmail” means.

          1. But you clearly understand denial.

    2. I suppose we could look for an email from Hunter to his crack dealer and ask if it was legitimate….

    3. “Russians? Under *my* bed?” It’s more likely than you think! Buy FBI brand anti-Red today and protect your bedroom from lurking Russians and cooperative CIA sources. Now with 75% more significant errors and forged emails per FISA application.

    4. True, but we can already deduce that they’re legit from the wording of Biden’s denial. No such meeting on his “official” schedule. Why qualify the denial that way otherwise?

      1. So, on July 18, 2016, you talked to how many people and what were their names. That is what you are asking him to do.

        1. Wait, wait, wait.

          So you’re saying that government officials and politicians routinely meet with countless foreign persons every day in the regular course of business? And this is and of itself is not anything suspicious? Does that include people from Russia or just other smaller countries like Ukraine?

          1. Government officials and politicians routinely meet with countless foreign persons, yes. No, that would of course not be suspicious in and of itself. It would kind of depend who these people were and what the context of the meetings are.

            For example, if someone said, “This foreign government, which is an enemy of the United States, wants to help you win your election,” and the response was, “If it’s what you say, then I love it, especially later in the campaign,” that would be suspicious. On the other hand, if someone said, “Hey, Dad, this is a guy I work with; he’s from the friendly country of Ukraine,” and the response was, “Hello, nice to meet you; how’s the weather in Kiev?” that would not be suspicious.

        2. DStraws — what was Scooter Libby convicted of???

          1. being a repub ….

      2. This. He might as well be sitting under oath saying he can’t remember.

      3. “Deductions from Birther Brett”

        ‘Hey, Brett, I’m looking for a Kenyan birth certificate. Prepared to pay top dollar.’

        ‘I know that Kenyan birth certificate exists, I can get it for you. Let me look around for it.’

        ‘Can’t put my hands on it — you know, the FBI, the CIA, the Russian hoax, etc.;

        ‘No problem. Here’s the deal. You couldn’t find that Kenyan birth certificate, but I did. Wanna buy it?’

        ‘Absolutely. You sure it’s legit?’

        ‘Guaranteed. Only it’s not the Kenyan birth certificate. It’s better. It’s Hunter Biden’s self-incriminating laptop.’

        ‘Oh, boy! How in the hell did you get that?’

        ‘Never mind . . . are you still buying?’

      4. Good work, Brett.

        Once again, you’ve found the absolutely worst possible interpretation of what someone you dislike said or did.

        The trouble with this approach is that your delusions just reinforce themselves.

        1. No, if the emails are fake the Biden campaign would have said so.

          1. How the hell would the Biden campaign know if an email between someone who isn’t part of the Biden campaign and someone else who isn’t part of the Biden campaign is fake?

            1. Lots of commenters here are saying exactly that. So making statements without evidence is easy.

            2. In the email a Burisma official allegedly (or some other higher up at Ukraine) thanks Hunter for giving him the opportunity to meet with his dad. If the the meeting never happened, then the email is as good as fake, and Joe Biden would have no issues with confirming it. Biden camp says the meeting was “not in the official schedule”.

              Ultimately someone will determine that the email actually did come from the sender. If he says the meeting did take place, Biden is either lying or he’s being set up hard.

              If the guy says he did send the email but denied meeting with Biden, then what’s the point of the email?

      5. They didn’t qualify any denial. They didn’t say that. They said that no such meeting took place. Why do Trumpkins keep telling this obvious lie?

        1. They said it wasn’t on his schedule. They never denied the meeting took place. They just said it wasn’t on his schedule and a lot of meetings are not.

          Why don’t you stop lying. It just makes you look dumber than you already are. You are not very good at it.

          1. Then why make the statement? According to your logic, the denial as actually an admission the meeting did happen.

            1. C’mon man. It’s a modified limited hangout.

              The denial excludes the possibility of a meeting that made it onto Biden’s official schedule. That allows lots of people to leap to the conclusion that there was no meeting. But it doesn’t actually say that. leaving wriggle room should it turn out that Rudy has evidence of a meeting, or if the Ukrainian guy pops up and claims a meeting happened.

              Biden’s campaign has – not in their formal statement but in briefing to Politico journalists – admitted the possibility of an informal meeting :

              Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule.

              So it’s perfectly standard damage limitation, when you don’t know exactly what the oppo has on you. You make as firm a statement as you can, without actually committing yourself to anything.

              And you get your surrogates to shout “it’s a fake, it’s the Russkies !” You do not do that yourself. Because when it turns out not to be a fake, it’s better that your surrogates have the egg on their faces, rather than you. In the meantime though, your eggy friends may have bought you a week.

    5. How is that disinformation? Hacked emails are legitimate emails that were acquired through illegitimate means. Perhaps you meant “forged” emails, i.e. deliberately false emails created by a 3rd party?

  4. Someone admits in print to reading Snopes? That ought to be a career killer.

      1. Circa early-2016:

        Frustrated and angered by having every conspiracy and belief they hold shown to be false — partly or wholly — by the Snopes website, it quickly becomes an article of faith among conservatives that Snopes is a Liberal BIAS shill. And forever shall it remain.

        1. It’s not an article of faith, like your belief in the people in government being good stewards of our lives.

          It’s based upon empiricism, like our belief that the people in government are not good stewards of our lives.

          1. Yes, the empiricism of “I believe this thing, but Snopes says this thing is nonsense, so Snopes is obviously a Liberal BIAS shill.” QED.

            1. When it comes to politics, Snopes harvests the fields for straw men to debunk, and half the time they still have to stretch the meaning of words and sentences to reach the predetermined outcome.

              1. There’s nothing wrong with reading Snopes. I read Snopes.

                But what we’ve all seen from reading Snopes is that they are a propaganda arm for the left that specializes in torturing words to spread disinformation. Usually they add one word to the “question” to nudge it off kilter or into strawman territory as you say.

                Of course, they also debunk genuine disinformation, and sometimes admit to information that benefits the right wing, but that’s just the supporting structure for the main operational value. They used to be different back in the day when it started.

                Honestly though, I’ve read PolitiFact articles that make Snopes look honest and straight by comparison.

                1. what we’ve all seen

                  It’s a common malady on the right, to declare things so obvious all must agree.

                  1. So you’re citing an article from a place where conservatives launder stories even the NYPost won’t touch — the Daily Mail — from 2017 claiming that the site is on the brink of being shut down as fraud. Help me out: what year is it now? Did Snopes shut down?

          2. The right lies a lot, and Snopes points it out, so Sam doesn’t like them.

            Tell us about how 85% of people wearing masks get Covid.

            1. The fact checks that I see say the CDC report doesn’t show mask wearers more likely to get COVID.

              Your claim is 85% of mask wearers get COVID.

              The claim that was made was that 85% of the COVID cases were mask wearers according to the CDC.

              Are you able to comprehend the differences between those three things?

              1. Sam,

                Thanks. Of course it’s idiotic to claim that 85% of mask wearers get Covid, and all the study showed was that 85% of a group of about 150 Covid patients said they wore masks regularly.

                You’re absolutely correct.

                But I’m not the one pushing the idiotic claim. Donald Trump is, including at his town hall.

                Glad you are starting to realize what a moron he is.

          3. I read Snopes every day. What makes you think they have a liberal bias?

              1. The article is about a lawsuit filed in 2017. Do you know if there have been any developments since then? Say in 2019? Did DailyMail follow-up on the story?

  5. A shame that the media did not show this same concern about verification before running with Dan Rather’s story about George W. Bush, the Steele Dossier, or Michael Avanatti’s “credible allegation” about Brett Kavanaugh organizing rape parties in high school.

    1. I know, that dichotomy of media behavior is….mighty peculiar.

      1. I know, that dichotomy of media behavior is….mighty peculiar.

        Not at all peculiar. We just had dueling “town halls” one was filled with almost half the time devoted to the “facilitator” grilling the candidate with wild accusations, and the other featured the “facilitator” asking leading questions about feelings, and cutting in commercials every 7-8 minutes in the second half to allow the candidate time to recover.
        So its not “media”, its DNC operatives with press passes. I’m happy to have cleared up your confusion.

    2. If they had shown more concern with respect to Bush we probably could have killed 100,000 more stinky Iraqis and sacrificed more of America’s best and brightest while flushing more trillions down the toilet…so sadz.

  6. With access to the (now normally hidden — but attached) header information and a basic knowledge of geography, it is remarkably easy to determine if an email is forged.

    The internet was designed to survive a nuclear war and the necessity to route around “damage” (i.e. nuked cities) and hence each machine presumes (a) that all traffic addressed to it is legitimate and (b) the machine sending it is who it says it is. (This is why it is so incredibly easy to forge email.)

    What is NOT easy to do is forge all the header information, both in terms of geography and time zones. While it doesn’t have to go the most direct route (and often won’t), it has to go *somehow* and when you trace it back, you’ll get to the point where you can’t figure out how it went from there to here and that’s where it was forged. 186,000 miles per second is fast but not instant, not when you get into thousands of miles, and each server will slow things down more — usually not much but when your date/time tag is calculated to the second, you can notice stuff.

    And then unless he had his own email server (e.g. Hillary Clinton), he had an ISP (e.g. Verizon) that handed all of this off to him. That will be on the header info, and the ISP will have both log files and billing records which the FBI would have had access to, if they wanted to. And this would extend to the physical location of the laptop that received it, i.e. which cell tower or what phone line, and then you ask if Hunter Biden was there.

    Remember too that the ISP assigns the local IP address, and they keep track of those for the same reason they keep track of who has what phone number — they have to know what customer to send the packets or phone call to. So regardless of if the emails were forged or not, it would be very easy to tell if they were sent to Hunter Biden’s account and the unique number of the computer’s network card, which should be the same as the one you have.

    1. Universities are actually recovering stolen computers this way — they watch for the stolen .nic cards to show up on their network and send the campus cops out when they find one.

  7. And then any reply Hunter Biden wrote can be confirmed via all kinds of .temp files elsewhere in the machine. I know someone who does computer forensics and it stands up in Federal court.

  8. And then any reply Hunter Biden wrote can be confirmed via all kinds of .temp files elsewhere in the machine. I know someone who does computer forensics and it stands up in Federal court.

  9. Has anyone on the Biden team claimed they’re not genuine ?

    1. Yes – they say there was no meeting w Ukrainian business monsters at the time the e-mails claim there was a meeting.

      1. No “official” meeting.

        “Dad, I’d like you to talk to this corrupt guy who is paying me money to influence you. Sure son, I will put it on my schedule. “

        1. Kind of like how JFK put his philandering on his schedule.

        2. As was pointed out elsewhere, that 1/5/17 meeting in the WH, which we know Biden attended, ALSO was not on his official schedule.

        3. They did not say no official meeting.

          1. Yes they did. Stop lying

          2. They also did not say “no meeting whatsoever.”

            So, what is your point?

      2. No Sarcastro, they said nothing about whether the emails are genuine.

        They did claim there was no such meeting on the official schedule at that time, but specifically said that it’s possible Biden met the guy in a cursory way. They also limited their statement to being around that time frame.

        The email says “opportunity” to meet and it’s not clear whether it references a meeting that already happened or an opportunity for a future meeting.

        1. Yeah, they haven’t said they categorically deny the emails are all fake. As noted above, given Russian tactics that would be foolhardy.

          But they have disputed some of them.

          1. No, they have disputed exactly zero of the emails as being fake.

            If you have some new information showing otherwise, link it. If not you’re just wrong as always.

            1. If you insist the only kind of dispute is ‘these e-mails are all lies’ that’s not going to happen.

              But to say that Biden’s official schedule doesn’t comport with what the e-mails say seems like it’s disputing something to me.

              1. No — to even say that one single, solitary email is not genuine, would qualify.

                They’ve not done that. What they did do was say that there isn’t such a meeting on the official schedule at that time, while also not ruling out

                (a) that there could have been some cursory handshake type of meeting,

                (b) that there could have been a meeting at another time, and

                (c) that the email could be genuine and referring to an “opportunity” for a meeting that never materialized.

              2. Sarcastro : But to say that Biden’s official schedule doesn’t comport with what the e-mails say seems like it’s disputing something to me.

                It’s disputing whether the matters described in the email – an invitation and a meeting – occurred. That’s not disputing that the email is genuine, ie whether it is a real email sent by the Ukrainian guy purporting to send it, to Hunter Biden. And that is what the Snopes article questions. –

                “It also raised questions about whether the emails, upon which the story’s entire premise is based, were real.”

                Now it may be that the Biden campaign actually does dispute the genuineness of the emails – eg they belive they are fakes or forgeries. But if they do, they haven’t said so yet (as far as I am aware.)

                If they are genuine, then the question arises – why did the Ukrainian guy send an email with incorrect information ?

                If they aren’t genuine, why hasn’t the Biden campaign said so ?

                1. It’s disputing whether the matters described in the email – an invitation and a meeting – occurred.

                  You guys are being very pedantic in service of arguing the e-mails are not disputed.

                  1. No, I asked if the Biden campaign has claimed that the emails are not genuine. You attempted to answer a different question – whether the emails reveal correct information. Why you did that I don’t know.

                    But I’m sure you appreciate that the issues raised are quite different if the emails are fabricated, or if they are genuine.

                    if they are fabricated, then there is nothing more to be said, apart from the question of how we know they’re fabricated, by whom they were fabricated and why.

                    If they’re genuine, then we need to know whether the information therein is correct, and what can reasonably be inferred if it is. And if incorrect, then why there are genuine, ancient, emails containing incorrect information about Hunter B’s dealings with Burisma and its agents.

              3. Actually, Sarcastr0, Biden’s official schedule DOES comport — there are two major gaps in it on the date referenced in the emails.

                And Biden’s attorney attempted to retrieve the hard drive, alleging it was Biden’s. QED….

                1. And Biden’s attorney attempted to retrieve the hard drive, alleging it was Biden’s.

                  No, he didn’t.

          2. The Biden camp doesn’t have to verify whether the email itself is authentic. They just have to confirm or deny the content.

            I can send a real email to someone saying “Hi I’m Brad Pitt and I met your dad yesterday” and I would be lying. Either Bard pitt met with the recipient’s dad or he didn’t.

            And this is all relevant because Biden denied meeting with Burisma officials. And he pressure the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor looking into Burisma.

            1. Not quite.

              If your email saying “Hi I’m Brad Pitt and I met your dad yesterday” is a real email, and my dad denies that he met Brad Pitt, that’s a denial.

              In weighing the likelihood that that my dad did or did not meet Brad Pitt we would need to consider – inter alia :

              (a) why you would have written such an email at the time that you did
              (b) whether there was just the one email from you to me, or several in both directions, and so whether you sending me an email with false info in it was in keeping with the pattern of our correspondence.

              So if the email is a fake, the denial is on very strong ground indeed.

              If the email is real, the denial and email are in conflict, and we need to weigh the two, along with any other evidence we may bring to bear.

              This is of course precisely why folk who are eager that the email in question should be dismissed, have immediately alighted on the argument that it’s a fake, and preferably an evil Russkie fake. Because if it is, then a simple denial by Biden is plenty good enough. But if it’s not a fake, then a simple denial is by no means conclusive.

              Reaching for “it’s a fake” is dangerous though, as Steve Scully discovered. For if it is demonstrated that it’s not a fake then you’re pretty much f****d, because your untruthful denial constitutes strong evidence that the email’s content is unimpeachable.

              Which is why the Biden camp has not claimed “it’s a fake, it’s the Russkies”, they’ve left that for their surrogates. Same reason why you send your press spokesman out to lie instead of doing it yourself. You’ve got yourself a fall guy for the lie.

  10. That too…

    I’ve gotten strange emails over the year, a couple I actually ran by a police officer, just for a second opinion before I ignored it.

    Hunter Biden grew up with USSS protection as the son of the VeeP.
    He’s a member of a board that has to have some sort of corporate security. *IF* these emails were forged, you’d think he’d have told someone about it at the time.

    1. This wasn’t his regular email. It was his “discuss illegal stuff” email and computer.

      1. It was a thank you for “arranging a meeting” email and computer.

    2. Hunter Biden grew up with USSS protection? Who taught you math?

      1. In fairness, it’s not completely clear if Hunter Biden ever actually grew up.

    3. “ Hunter Biden grew up with USSS protection as the son of the VeeP.”

      Hunter Biden was 38 when his father became VP.

    4. Hunter Biden grew up with USSS protection as the son of the VeeP.

      Are you stupid, or are you really stupid?

      Hunter Biden was 38 years old when his father became Vice President.

  11. The FBI has the laptop. Just ask them to confirm whether the emails are true or not.

    /s

      1. Of course they are. That’s what they do. Defend Democrats at all costs.

        Weird how those same unskeptically feds used foreign disinfo to spy on candidate and President Trump.

        1. Are you stupid, or just deeply confused?

          1. Insults aren’t arguments.

            HTH

            1. I think that would be news to Sam Gompers.

          2. You have to understand something, Otis.

            These guys are locked in. They believe Trump and his cronies, no matter what.

            If anyone, anyone, the FBI, intelligence agencies, present or former Administration officials, says Trump is wrong, then they must be part of the Deep State or otherwise conspiring against Trump.

            That’s it. They are impervious.

            1. Meanwhile you people remain completely oblivious or ambivalent to the mountains of evidence of malfeasance by the people at the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, and SDNY.

              You even believe there is no way a crackhead would leave a laptop at a repair store and it somehow must be the Russians.

            2. Yeah that is it. It the Trump people who are impervious not the morons grasping at straws claiming there was a Russian conspiracy to fake Hunter Biden’s email.

              You people are pathetic

      2. The FBI managed to investigate Hillary’s 33,000 emails in a weekend using only 2 people to do it. Strozk was one of the two. Maybe, he could clear this up? LOL /S

  12. This opens up so many opportunities for criminal defense. You say my client robbed that bank? Well, here’s a list of a thousand places my client wasn’t that day. The odds are, this bank was just another place he wasn’t.

    1. Assuming the emails are real, the best remaining defense is “my son was a fraudster trying to fictitiously trade on access to me.”

      1. And so, contrary to all the cruel talk of his general uselessness, Hunter comes through as a top class grifter. All that money in exchange for neat little envelopes of squat.

        1. $10 million from China for “introductions only.”

      2. Except for the 50% for Joe and similar things.

        1. You have evidence?

          You are accusing Biden of accepting a bribe. It is reprehensible to do that without evidence, and I don’t mean what Sean Hannity or someone on pjmedia said.

          I had hoped you were gone forever. Dashed.

          1. Giuliani posted what he claimed to be a text message from Hunter B to his daughter stating :

            “But don’t worry unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

            This may turn out to be fake or fraudulent evidence. But at present, it’s better than any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, which somehow sustained a three year $40 million official government investigtion.

            1. “Colluding” is a straw man. I have to believe you are aware of that.

              1. “co-ordinating” if you prefer.

      3. Assuming the emails are real, the best remaining ‘defense’ is “So what?”

        1. Ah I wondered where you boys would be going. “So what” is the fallback position. Corruption on a monumental scale is going to be ignored because Trump is worse. I think you had better continue down the path of Russian disinformation. The public is not quite ready for “so what?”.

        2. If it’s genuine, it’s evidence that one of the things Hunter provided in exchange for his salary was access to his father. But only a blind fool would have ever thought otherwise, so what does this change?

          It might be evidence usable in court – but for what charges? Perhaps the FBI didn’t investigate because, even if you take the e-mail as genuine and think there really was a meeting, there’s no federal crime there. Now if only the FBI had followed their policy of not investigating non-crimes when it came to Trump and his aides, rather than cooking up perjury traps and digging through everything those aides ever did, for Trump or not.

          Or for that matter, if they had pressed for charges on the very real crimes Hillary committed with her e-mail, Trump might have had a real opponent in the last election, rather than a worn-out old woman too stupid and arrogant to learn the rules for classified information a 19-year old high school graduate has to learn if he joins the military.

          1. “Perhaps the FBI didn’t investigate because, even if you take the e-mail as genuine and think there really was a meeting, there’s no federal crime there.”

            The problem is that Biden denied ever having met with Burisma officials. He also pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was assigned to look into Burisma. And there’s always that sticky question of how a navy dropout with an addiction problem got a job in a energy company. Hunter wasn’t hired for some ceremonial communication or outreach director, he was hired as a “consultant”. What’s his expertise in energy? Burisma doesn’t exactly have a sterling reputation.

            At the very least, this information that should have reached Barr and possibly even the media. The FBI decided not to act on information that shows a meeting between a VP and a Burisma official even when Ukraine saga was dominating impeachment discourse?

    2. I seem to remember an ATM receipt being a defense at the Duke rape trial.

      1. No, you don’t, because there was no Duke rape trial.

  13. ” A Way to Determine Whether the NY Post has a Trove of Hunter ‘s Biden’s Emails ”

    It seems like just yesterday that the proprietor of this blog was offering pointers to others on headline-writing . . .

  14. Rudy Giuliani’s involvement in this is by itself good reason to doubt the story. He has been fishing around in Ukraine for two years trying to dig something up that will stick, and now that time is running out it is entirely credible that he would make up what he couldn’t dig up, maybe with some help from Andrii Derkach.

    1. I agree.

      But the response from Biden and allies so far has gone a long way to rehabilitating the credibility of the documents, if not the repair shop origin story.

    2. If the response to this was rational: “It’s almost certainly fake”, “Good grief, didn’t we resolve this”, or something of the kind, I would agree with you. The chain of custody is very nebulous and the set of events, while plausible, is a bit unlikely. At the very least, the FBI has purportedly had this for over a year with no comment.

      However, even if it turns out that the emails are fake, this scandal still justifies every conservative hackle that it raised. Trump has had dozens of stories raised against him that were almost immediately withdrawn. However, the media supported and promoted every last one of them. However, this accusation about Biden, despite being better documented and fitting existing evidence, is so extreme that Twitter shut down the president’s campaign account for mentioning it? That double standard is so extreme that it baffles my mind that anyone can deny its existence.

      1. They also have had Antony Weiners laptop with tens of thousands of Hillary and Huma’s emails for 4 years. I’m sure they will get right on that, right Chief?

  15. The story here is rapidly changing from the content of the e-mails to the ridiculousness of Giuliani’s actions, odd timeline, and the GOP ignoring red flags.

    1. Of course the “story” is changing. The rally around Biden effect is in full bloom by a corrupt media.

      1. Yeah, the story falling apart is itself a sign of the story’s validity.

        Good thing you’ve admitted to having no principles, or I’d take you for a fool.

        1. It’s not falling apart though.

          1. Right, Gascastro thinks if he says something we believe him.

          2. “It’s not falling apart though.”

            No, it’s as rock-solid as ever. Rudy’s stooges do good, quality work. Nothing to complain about. As long as the marks buy into it, it doesn’t matter how ridiculous it looks to people who directly experience reality.

      2. “Of course the “story” is changing. The rally around Biden effect is in full bloom by a corrupt media.”

        Of course the “story” is changing, Trump likes to lie, but has trouble keeping his lies consistent, so he no longer even tries.

  16. Wait a second …. GOOD LORD, THAT’S JIM LINDGREN’S MUSIC!

    (check’s subject of the post)

    Yep, checks out.

    1. I thought he’d be taller.

      1. Is that a Prequel meme reference? If it is, bravo.

  17. “Of course, the FBI could probably easily determine whether some of the emails are authentic—and it probably already has. ”

    Indeed, and the FBI apparently sat on these emails throughout the impeachment saga, even though they are the strongest documentary evidence yet pertinent to that matter.

    If the emails are not fake, then why the FBI/deep state do this to Trump? After all the Crossfire Hurricane, Russia collusion stuff I figured they were totally not out to get Trump.

    1. And if they ARE fake, wouldn’t they have been introduced during the impeachment?

      1. “And if they ARE fake, wouldn’t they have been introduced during the impeachment?”

        Dr. Ed think submitting fake evidence that is known to be fake is a good way to win arguments, so this question makes sense to him.

  18. Occam’s Razor being applied here means that a meth addled drug addict who films himself boinking hookers while smoking crack does something stupid, like drop his computer off to be repaired and not pick it up, and a major paper (the NY Post) running the story, means that yea, it’s probably real.

    Folks, when you hear hoof beats, it likely a horse and not a zebra.

    1. Occam’s Razor means that when mad_kalak posts something, it’s going to be wrong. Just like when Dr. Ed posts something, it’s going to be a lie, but at least have some sort of entertaining made-up anecdote that’s probably about Maine in the 1960s.

      But sure, we should all believe a conveniently-timed release of emails, that was provided from Rudy Giuliani (that we know has been a target of Russian disinformation), that was provided to him by John Paul Mac Isaac (who had a practical breakdown in his one interview with reporters, after referring to Giuliani as his lifeguard), and was never fact-checked by the NY Post because the reported on it was a former Hannity staffer who has never written a news story in her life, until this one.

      And, of course, the story was provided to Trump and Hannity prior to being released. All of this is totally normal!

      1. Dr. Ed wasn’t even alive in the 60’s. The story most likely happened in the 80’s.

        1. Loki didn’t say that Dr. Ed was a competent liar, just an entertaining one.

          1. But “entertaining” isn’t true, either.

        2. When Dr. Ed was alive, and what his anecdotes are, seems to vary depending on what he needs you to believe to be true.

          1. loki13, neither motor vehicles nor internet packets are exempt from the laws of physics.

          2. “When Dr. Ed was alive, and what his anecdotes are, seems to vary depending on what he needs you to believe to be true.”

            What never changes is that he cannot help but try to show that he knows more than people who know what they’re talking about, despite being unable to conceal the fact that he does not.

      2. You’re doing a awful lot of justification there, kinda proving my point.

        Did you spin those wheels the same same way about the phone call to Ukraine that was the focus of Trump’s impeachment, or all the material leaked endlessly from Mueller’s investigation, or Trump’s tax material, etc. etc. ?

        1. I don’t need to spin any wheels.

          The GOP is the party of QAnon.

          You know you can’t find gullible in the dictionary. Right?

          1. Look in the mirror. Dems have fallen for every anti-Trump hoax since he came down the escalator.

            On a serious note, belief in conspiracy theories cuts across party lines. https://www.insider.com/how-republicans-and-democrats-differ-on-conspiracy-theories-2019-7

            1. “Look in the mirror. Dems have fallen for every anti-Trump hoax since he came down the escalator.”

              Sorry, was I supposed to take Trump seriously? Literally? Worry about his 4-D chess?

              Or just retreat to the island of credulity that you exist on? You and the other misfit toys.

              1. I don’t expect you to take Trump literally, but he’s always joking and trolling. It’s part of his schtick. I would take him seriously as he’s the President though, even if you think he’s a fool and a clown. I mean, even if he did retweet the Babylon Bee, he has a lot of power.

                Serious question for you. Do you think Epstein killed himself?

                1. ” I mean, even if he did retweet the Babylon Bee, he has a lot of power.”

                  Nah, the Deep State will keep him in line.

            2. “Dems have fallen for every anti-Trump hoax since he came down the escalator. ”

              They’re still looking for his Oompa-Loompa birth certificate?

      3. Because IP addresses and metadata doesn’t exist….

        1. You know, I remember talking to my good friend, a Mr. Muskie, and I think it was 1963 in Lewiston, Maine.

          And he says to me, “Dr. Ed, that is some fetching hunter’s orange you are wearing. Did you get it down east?”

          I replied, “Why, no, Senator Ed, I picked it up in Freeport. Hey, I have this idea for a whole highway of tubes, that we can send trucks on, that will connect the world!”

          “Why Dr. Ed, that is a wonderful idea! Let me float it to this new ‘DARPA’ that just started. Perhaps we can get a company, like Bolt Beranek and Newman to be interested as well.”

          “That’s great, Senator Ed! By the way, how you like the chow-dah! CHOWDAH!”

          1. If that is your attempt at humor, I’ll add that to scale on the side of “the left can’t meme”.

            And I’m no Ed defender, but wow, don’t make it so personal, yo.

            1. Ed and Loki both didn’t post for about a week or so and re-appera the same day. Um.

              Loki is rude to everyone though, not just Ed.

              1. I try to remember that it’s a human being on the other keyboard. I usually ignore Loki’s screeds, but I weighed in today.

            2. “If that is your attempt at humor, I’ll add that to scale on the side of “the left can’t meme”.”

              Woah. Lecturing other people about humor?

              That’s the funniest thing you’ve every posted!

              1. *ads another nugget of weight to “the left can’t meme” scale*

              2. “…1963…some fetching hunter’s orange you are wearing a whole highway of tubes, that we can send trucks on…”

                Maine didn’t have hunter safety orange in the early 1960’s — most people wore red & black plaid and the fatality rate was horrendous. And then some people went for safety yellow, which was even worse because in low light appears to be off-white and was confused for the white tail of the targeted deer.

                Maine also wouldn’t really have trucks for another decade (and I-95 wouldn’t be completed to the Canadian border until the early 1980’s — in 1963 it was railroads, including a lot of lines now abandoned.

                It was much of the potato crop being lost in the midst of the PennCentral bankruptcy circa 1973/4 and then river log drives being banned in 1975 that forced the state to widen the roads & bridges for trucks.

                Not to confuse anyone with facts….

                1. “Not to confuse anyone with facts….”

                  I believe your are utterly unfamiliar with the conceptual framework of what a “fact” is.

    2. “Folks, when you hear hoof beats, it likely a horse and not a zebra.”

      Not if you’re standing in a zebra preserve.

  19. I would just like to note that inconsistencies with the stolen (err…”leaked”) tax returns of Donald Trump didn’t seem to warrant such online censorship from Facebook or Twitter. It all smacks of partisan bias, which given especially Twitter’s brand of censorship where left wing violence is not subject any form of scrutiny, is not exactly surprising.

    1. Partisan bias is one explanation.

      Another is that the NY Times news organization has a better reputation for journalistic accuracy and vetting stories than the Post has earned under Rupert Murdoch, and that the Times story was authored by three experienced journalists two of whom have won Pulitzer prizes, while the Post masthead lists a relatively junior investigative reporter and someone with no journalism background at all.

      If you were concerned that your platform might be used to spread misinformation, which one would you choose to restrict pending further verification?

      1. Oops, “byline” not “masthead”.

      2. LOLOLOLOL….NY Times and accuracy

        1. Yeah…that made me smile. What a delusional moron.

          1. Correction: A smiling delusional moron.

      3. The NYT fact-checkers took at least two years to discover that Jayson Blair was just making up stories.

        1. When they did they came clean, and cleaned house.
          News organizations are susceptible to bogus sources if they don’t verify them properly, that’s what happened to CBS News in 2004 and triggered Dan Rather’s exit. They are even more vulnerable when it’s an inside job, as Jayson Blair was. Do they have policies and procedures to prevent or detect these problems? And when they do happen, do they retract the falsehood and make changes to improve their reliability? The Times does, but the Post doesn’t seem to have the same concern about accuracy, and it is reflected in their lower reliability scores on watchdogs like adfontesmedia.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com.

        2. All that is in evidence with this story. The Post assigns it to a Hannity staffer and a reporter who probably hasn’t had to verify a fact more demanding than the date of the local VFW bake sale, and the result is they go to press with a laptop origin story that is not believable, and a repair shop owner who won’t answer basic questions that they apparently didn’t bother to ask. So why did Rudy pass this to the Post, instead of a respected right-leaning news organization like the Wall Street Journal? Maybe because they wouldn’t have bought it.

          And since nothing sells it like an anecdote, here’s one: Reporter Selim Algar wrote a story for the Times in January 2005 about Turkish immigrants on Long Island selling bootleg gasoline. If you follow that link you’ll discover that one-third of the story is corrections, there were so many errors that the corrections took half as much text as the original story. Mr. Algar didn’t write again for the Times after that, but joined the Post staff that same year and has been reporting for them ever since.

      4. The NYT covered up genocide and their journalist won a Pulitzer for it. The Times only has a good reputation with leftists and college professors but I repeat myself.

        1. somebody’s looking for a good excuse for bad college grades.
          keep looking, that wasn’t it.

    2. “I would just like to note that inconsistencies with the stolen (err…”leaked”) tax returns of Donald Trump didn’t seem to warrant such online censorship from Facebook or Twitter.”

      They also weren’t obviously fake.

  20. Guys, when documents are published revealing potential corruption or other wrongdoing, the real issue is not the corruption or wrongdoing.

    The real issue is, how dare they publish that material?

    1. Or that it might have been acquired in an “illegal” manner….(no such similar concern for Trump’s tax returns though.)

      1. Yes and we really need to find out who did this and go after them and punish them.

        You see, the content of a statement or information is not important, so much as who it comes from.

        1. “Yes and we really need to find out who did this and go after them and punish them.”

          When the Donald runs his campaign into a ditch, there’ll be plenty of time to round up the cronies.

    2. “Guys, when documents are published revealing potential corruption or other wrongdoing, the real issue is not the corruption or wrongdoing.”

      when stuff magically appears just when you want it to, and it seems to be just exactly what you wished for, there’s a good possibility it’s totally fake. Didn’t you learn anything from when that Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama turned up?

      1. “October surprise” is a tool used by the left in every presidential election. And yet the lefties cant grasp it being used against them.

        1. Fake is fake. If you’re made at me because I’m treating it like a fake, the problem remains yours.

        2. It isn’t just conservatives who fall for the convieniently-timed fake. Ask Dan Rather about it.

  21. Remember when liberals used to champion a proud tradition of media outlets exposing government corruption by obtaining and publishing documents they weren’t supposed to have?

    1. Remember with conservatives didn’t love Russian intel ops?

      (I don’t know which this is, but the right does not appear to care to even consider)

      1. If it’s a “Russian intel op” then that gives cause for suspicion as to whether the information is genuine, and it gives cause for US politicians to have better cyber security and to not be corrupt or at least be more careful.

        As I’ve already said, there are already reasons to be suspicious. But if the information is genuine, then what do you do with it? It doesn’t matter if it’s published by the NYT, the Guardian, Der Speigel, or whoever.

        I suppose the FBI will probably say these emails are hacked by Russia. They also said that about WikiLeaks, but there has been no proof whatsoever offered to the public, not even any plausible explanation of proof. We can just take the FBI’s word for it. I’m ok with that argument. The one problem is this: no minimally competent hacker will ever leave behind forensic evidence tracing the hack back to them. They are almost impossible to catch unless they make a clear error, and if they are caught it’s usually by some more human method or because they went and bragged about it, etc.

        1. What makes you think Giuliani can tell a minimally comptent hacker from a competent one?

          Look, we all know where this is going. The FBI is going to say this is a bunch of nonsense, probably Russian disinformation, and you’re not going to believe them, because they put a comma in the wrong place in their statement, or they’re totally out to get Trump, or whatever.

          As I said, impervious.

          1. bernard,

            Your response indicates that I didn’t get my point across exactly.

            If the emails are fake, then this whole issue is moot.

            If the emails are real, then what? Then it is bad for Bidens. But aside from that, perhaps the FBI will claim that the emails were hacked by Russians. The problem with that is, after a successful hack, it’s virtually impossible to prove who the perpetrator was. This is similar to the DNC Wikileaks saga. Although it is widely asserted that the DNC was hacked by Russia, no good evidence has been made public and the Mueller report undercuts it:

            “The report’s use of that one word, “appear,” undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence that GRU officers stole “thousands of emails and attachments” from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language used in his July 2018 indictment, which contained no such qualifier . . .

            “It’s certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller’s indictment and the extra wiggle room inserted into his report a year later,” says former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley. “It may be an example of this and other existing gaps that are inherent with the use of circumstantial information. With Mueller’s exercise of quite unprecedented (but politically expedient) extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict foreign intelligence operatives who were never expected to contest his conclusory assertions in court, he didn’t have to worry about precision. I would guess, however, that even though NSA may be able to track some hacking operations, it would be inherently difficult, if not impossible, to connect specific individuals to the computer transfer operations in question.””

            https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

            1. “If the emails are real, then what? Then it is bad for Bidens.”

              If the emails were real, and Rudy had them, they would have seen the light of day right away, so he could use them and keep using them.
              But they’re fake, and they won’t work if they’re shown to be fake, so they appear at a time when there isn’t enough time to prove it to the true believers.

          2. What makes you think Giuliani can tell a minimally comptent hacker from a competent one?

            He can’t. But he can hire Donaldstrike to prepare a report on the matter, which will show that the e mails are (a) totally genuine and (b) not hacked by anyone. The FBI, following established precedent, will immediately believe that report, without attempting an investigation of its own. And the FBI having spoken, the media will totally accept that conclusion.

        2. “If it’s a “Russian intel op” then that gives cause for suspicion as to whether the information is genuine, and it gives cause for US politicians to have better cyber security and to not be corrupt or at least be more careful.”

          It says nothing about US politicians’ cyber security, it says not to have anyone want to make fake “evidence” that you’re corrupt. Or maybe it says something about not accepting things that you wish were true as if they were true. Sorry, the Nigerian oil minister’s widow will not be wiring you $20,000,000 for letting her use your bank account information, and nobody’s going to send you contact information to meet hot horny singles in your area.

          1. You are saying the emails are faked and the NY Post is lying is setting itself up to destroy its entire business but it is the people who believe their lying eyes and take the emails as legitimate who are believing what they want to be true.

            It is a wonder your lack of self awareness does not burn through the Internet. My God what is wrong with you?

            1. That Nigerian Prince called again, he wants to give you $20 million dollars if he can just use your bank account for a day.

      2. Sarcastro : Remember with conservatives didn’t love Russian intel ops?

        Conservatives have not spotted any Russian intel ops of any substance in 2016 or 2020. In 2016 there were Hillary ops, laundered through a British copywriter and a Beltway Ukrainian.

        Now, the cry “Russian intel ops !” have sprung from nowhere, to help
        make smoke.

        If the Russkies are up to no good here, the good news is that they’re woefully dim and incompetent and so unlikely to be dangerous. There’s no conceivable reason for the Russkies to prefer Trump, who has been way nastier to them policywise than Obama, to Biden.

        As for the motive of weakening Biden as President, what good would that do ? The Dems will be slavering to swap him out for Kamala anyway. If the Russkies don’t know that, what sort of intel organisation are they running ?

        And if they were manufacturing fake evidence against Biden it’d be good stuff, larded with pee tapes and all the trimmings, not a couple of emails and texts that merely hint at evil doing. Why go to the trouble of framing Biden and have only the bottom of hi left leg in the frame ? Get him all in there.

        1. “Conservatives have not spotted any Russian intel ops of any substance in 2016 or 2020.”

          Of course not. They think Trump won on his own incredible management skill. There’s no way the Russians thought they could cripple us by getting us to put an idiot in charge of the whole country!

          1. Cripple the US by electing a guy who moved troops to Poland, for Europe to start rearming, created a stable coalition against Iran and did about a million other things that are against Russian interests

            Are you a Russian bot James or really as stupid and delusional as you seem? If you are a bot you are not a very convincing one. No one is really this stupid are they?

            1. Yeah. Who can ever forget the way he clapped back when it became known that the Russkies were putting bounties on American servicemen. And it wasn’t all bluster, like the way he treated North Korea.

            2. “Are you a Russian bot James or really as stupid and delusional as you seem?”

              Oh noes! The stupid and delusional person called me stupid and delusional! Why should I care?

        2. ” There’s no conceivable reason for the Russkies to prefer Trump, who has been way nastier to them policywise than Obama, to Biden.”

          Unless you count Trump’s utter incompetence, which the Russkies are likely aware of.

          1. All that Incompetence that you can’t articulate. Who do you think you are kidding here except yourself?

            1. “All that Incompetence that you can’t articulate.”

              Persons of at least normal intelligence can readily see it. Since you can’t, let me spell some of it out for you:
              200,000 people dead of a virus that “will go away by itself when the weather warms up”
              telling Iran to go ahead and make atomic bombs
              Doing nothing when the Russkies put bounties on American servicemen.

          2. Trump has proven himself the most competent foreign policy president since Reagan. Perhaps not a high bar, considering who came in between.

            1. Reagan, the guy who sold weapons to Iran?

              1. Seriously, that’s your benchmark for a guy who does foreign policy well?

            2. “Trump has proven himself the most competent foreign policy president since Reagan.”

              He’s not even in the top 46.

      3. Why on Earth would the Russians want to hurt Biden and help Trump? President Biden will ban fracking, thus rescuing the sagging Russian oil industry.

        A Russian oligarch with ties to Putin give $3.5 million to Hunter Biden. For no reason which anyone can figure out. Was that all part of some clever Russkie plan to make the Biden’s looks bad?

        1. “A Russian oligarch with ties to Putin give $3.5 million to Hunter Biden. For no reason which anyone can figure out. Was that all part of some clever Russkie plan to make the Biden’s looks bad?”

          Sure, sure… Did you bother to inform the FBI about your foreign intelligence coup or did you just save it for Internet arguments?

        2. “Why on Earth would the Russians want to hurt Biden and help Trump? President Biden will ban fracking”

          If Presidents could ban fracking. Do you even read your own rants before hitting “Submit”?

    2. “Remember when liberals used to champion a proud tradition of media outlets exposing government corruption by obtaining and publishing documents they weren’t supposed to have?”

      You apparently remember when Hunter Biden was a part of the government. I don’t think anybody else remembers that.

  22. I just learned from this article that the guy has the *actual laptop*
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/15/hunter-biden-demanded-chinese-billionaire-pay-10-m/

    Oh, that’s rich.

    “The owner of the shop, John Paul Mac Isaac, claimed legal ownership since nobody picked it up, and he provided a download to the FBI and to Mr. Giuliani, who was conducting an investigation into Hunter Biden’s financial ties to an energy business in Ukraine.

    The FBI and U.S. attorney in Delaware refused to comment on anything related to the laptop, including whether they were in possession of it, citing their policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation.”

    1. Note, I thought he provided the laptop to the FBI. Nope. He provided them only a copy of it. He wisely kept the original.

    2. “When asked how he could prove that the damning texts and emails came from Hunter Biden’s computer, Giuliani revealed that Biden’s lawyer contacted John Paul Mac Isaac, the Delaware computer repair shop owner who had discovered the material, as soon as the story broke.”
      “I’ll give you something that really verifies it,” Giuliani said. “The very morning this came out, Hunter Biden’s lawyer called the merchant, and asked him if he could have the hard drive back,” he said. “We have email evidence of that. So if the lawyer is asking for the hard drive back—it must be the hard drive.”
      “He actually did it by telephone and email and we have the email,” Giuliani added.
      [snip]
      “It’s almost as if it makes it worse on them, Mr. Giuliani!” he exclaimed.
      “Oh yeah, it’s the dumbest thing a lawyer can do….

      https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/16/giuliani-hunter-bidens-attorney-contacted-computer-repairman-after-ny-post-story-broke-wanted-hard-drive-back/

      1. If only Mr. Giuliani could be taken as an honest source of information, and not as a giant windbag of misinformation. He’s spent too much time with Mr. Trump, and the untrustworthiness has rubbed off. I wouldn’t believe him that the sky was blue without consulting a window.

        1. If only you were not an idiot you would understand that Rudy has no reason to lie there. I don’t care how dishonest he is or is not, he isn’t stupid. It would be stupid of him to make claims that he cannot back up and invite Biden to call him on it. He is not bluffing here.

          The emails are real. If they concerned a Republican you would never doubt it. You are just grasping at straws.

          1. “If only you were not an idiot you would understand that Rudy has no reason to lie there.”

            How does your being an idiot somehow require me to be one? Rudy has no reason to lie there, except that it’s his job. Other than that, nothing.

            “The emails are real. If they concerned a Republican you would never doubt it. You are just grasping at straws.”

            Sure, sure, and hot MILFS in my area are just waiting to meet me, and if you just do this ONE SIMPLE TRICK you can make $400,000/day working from home.

    3. More importantly, reportedly, the emails are FROM Biden and that’s real easy to prove — does it show up in the ISP’s log files…

      1. “More importantly, reportedly, the emails are FROM Biden and that’s real easy to prove — does it show up in the ISP’s log files…”

        If ISPs had log files of emails sent by their customers.
        Most ISPs don’t snoop their customers’ emails, however.

        When you click “send”, you email client does a DNS lookup for find the mail exchanger for the target domain of your message, then it contacts that server directly and transmits the message to that server. As messages pass through email servers, the message’s headers get updated by each mail server it passes through, and forensic examination can show how a message got routed. Spammers forge this information to conceal the origin of their messages.

    4. “I just learned from this article that the guy has the *actual laptop*”

      I’m sure it will turn out to be a valuable collector’s item.

  23. The FBI is reportedly investigating whether this “laptop” was part of a disinformation operation by foreign intel operatives. If it was, we should expect that most of the emails and media files are genuine and that they were obtained from hacked accounts. There are likely to be forgeries mixed in with the genuine data, and it will take a complete forensic analysis to separate the two. The timing of the release by Rudy is suspicious, because it’s early enough to potentially affect the election, but too late for a complete analysis.

    1. “The timing of the release by Rudy is suspicious, because it’s early enough to potentially affect the election, but too late for a complete analysis.”

      The corrupt FBI has had this data for almost a year now. What’s suspicious is the way they consistently leak information damaging to Trump, while consistently suppressing information damaging to themselves and the Democrats. (But I repeat myself)

      1. The timing of the release by Rudy is suspicious, because Rudy.

    2. “The FBI is reportedly investigating whether this “laptop” was part of a disinformation operation by foreign intel operatives.”

      The other possibility in play is whether it was domestic intel operatives.

  24. Right ….the FBI. Now there’s a trusted source of information!

    (Yes, that was sarcasm)

    The FBI has spent the last several year waging an open campaign to depose the elected President. They see themselves as the Praetorian Guard. They’ve deliberately suppressed information time and again to protect Democrats, and deliberately leaked and altered information to attack Trump.

    1. That explains why they didn’t release a press release that said, in it’s entirety, “Seriously???”

  25. On what basis would the FBI get involved? “Because inquiring minds want to know” is not good enough.

  26. It is trivially easy to verify the emails, by using DKIM (“Domain Keys Identified Mail”) signatures in the headers of the emails. Google and most other provides have been including DKIM signatures for years. Those cryptographically verify the relevant information and content of the emails. Pozharskyi in particular used Gmail, so it should be easy to confirm the DKIM signature.

  27. Amazing that the FBI is investigating these emails for almost a year, Weiners Hillary emails since 2016 yet, they went through 33,000 emails in a weekend before the 2016 Election to clear Hillary? Not only that, the 33,000 were cleared by only 2 people. Peter Strozk was one of them. Nothing to see here though, right?

    1. It’s all a conspiracy, and they ARE out to get you. Go hide under the bed until someone comes and tells you it’s safe to come out.

      1. da, comrade …. Gen Flynn agrees

        1. Why are you still visible? The alien lizard-lords will boil your brains if they can see you.

  28. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job. Its a simple and easy job to try to to and its earnings ar far better than regular workplace job. everyone will currently get additional greenbacks on-line by simply open this link and follow directions to urge started.…Click here.

  29. The FBI is more likely to arrest anyone in possession of the photos that are on the laptop, than they are to arrest Hunter Biden.

    1. Why would Hunter Biden keep photos showing a seedy side of himself on his laptop?

  30. Some of you believe the emails aren’t true? Wow. It seems that a reasonable, unbiased, person would find it hard not to believe. It isn’t made up that the kid had dealings with companies in the Ukraine and in China. And his Dad is VP. Hmm. And you people take Joe’s word for it? Look at the dude’s history.

Please to post comments