The Democrat Utopia

Pretty much what I thought. The questioning basically establishes that the laptop is real, at one time belonged to Hunter, and the iCloud info belongs to Hunter. It doesn't say wether or not it was tampered with. And the FBI agent apparently doesn't have first hand knowledge of that anyway.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna155515?page=4#live-blog

Before he wrapped up, Abbe Lowell directly asked FBI agent Jensen about any evidence that the laptop data had been tampered with.

“Did you find out whether any of the files had been tampered with?” he asked.

“I did not,” she said.
 
Lowell then asked to confirm that none of Jensen's knowledge was learned firsthand. The agent, who joined the investigation in 2023, said no.

In starting the redirect, prosecutor Derek Hines addressed the tampering questions raised by Lowell.

He asked if she had seen any evidence of tampering with the laptop data

“No,” Jensen replied.

Hines also had Jensen clarify that the data obtained from Hunter’s iCloud account came from a distinct, separate source (directly from Apple via search warrant) than the laptop.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Why do Republicans care so much about Hunter's battles with addiction?
Click to expand...
They've invented a fictional world of victim-hood in their minds to deal with voting for America hating autocrats and criminals. 

By projecting this victim-hood of the Justice system onto their political opponents, it gives these people the chance to say: See! BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG!

Meanwhile, people on the opposite side of them really don't look at or care about Hunter Biden. If he committed crimes, lock him up. I'm not voting for him nor is he fit to run for any office. But this realization is lost on conservative voters who's connection with reality no longer exists.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So what starts as someone brought into the case late being asked if they had seen any evidence of tampering and responding "No", as well as saying they did not find out whether any of the files had been tampered with,

then turns into people on twitter saying that the FBI agent said NO TAMPERING OCCURRED

and then people predictably believe (because they want to) the editorialized commentary claiming something that wasn't claimed?

Shocker.

 
Lorewarn said:
So what starts as someone brought into the case late being asked if they had seen any evidence of tampering and responding "No", as well as saying they did not find out whether any of the files had been tampered with,

then turns into people on twitter saying that the FBI agent said NO TAMPERING OCCURRED

and then people predictably believe (because they want to) the editorialized commentary claiming something that wasn't claimed?

Shocker.
Click to expand...
One doesn’t have to originally start on a case from day one to expertly speak on said case he/she is and has been on :thumbs

 
Archy1221 said:
One doesn’t have to originally start on a case from day one to expertly speak on said case he/she is and has been on :thumbs
Click to expand...




The distinction of them not originally being on the case actually has nothing to do with their credibility as an expert witness, but it does have something to do with what types of questions their testimony is relevant to.

One does, however, need to have a piss poor amount of media literacy to be party to the spread of inaccurate editorializing that makes claims that weren't ever made.

 
Lorewarn said:
The distinction of them not originally being on the case actually has nothing to do with their credibility as an expert witness, but it does have something to do with what types of questions their testimony is relevant to.
Click to expand...
And one should assume the Defense will soon call experts to tell us all about the manipulation of the laptop and the data within that’s been presented as being corrupt.  Again, assuming that’s actually the case as you and other are representing it.  
 

Lorewarn said:
One does, however, need to have a piss poor amount of media literacy to be party to the spread of inaccurate editorializing that makes claims that weren't ever made
Click to expand...
A piss poor amount of media literacy is pretty nebulous term.  
 

Inaccurate editorializing according to you, not the facts presented it seems. 

 
It’s amazing how many times these, arrgghhhh everyone against the Democrat machine is a Russian spy, bot, puppet,etc…..gets exposed as false and just a coordinated effort by media and Dems to spread false information.  Shenanigans I tell ya….Shenanigans.  
 


 
Lorewarn said:
So what starts as someone brought into the case late being asked if they had seen any evidence of tampering and responding "No", as well as saying they did not find out whether any of the files had been tampered with,

then turns into people on twitter saying that the FBI agent said NO TAMPERING OCCURRED

and then people predictably believe (because they want to) the editorialized commentary claiming something that wasn't claimed?

Shocker.
Click to expand...
All the government did was prove that the Apple content was Hunter's and it was obtained legally by them, since the laptop was "abandoned".That's it, and that's all they needed to do. This case doesn't care about any of the other files on the hard drive, they just want pictures of Hunter using drugs when he owned or submitted the permit for the gun. I would think they are probably going to see if they can make a case that he had intent to distribute as well.

This is the similar to how they took down FPSRussia. Find him with some drugs and send them to jail. Literally everyone who smokes weed and owns a gun is guilty of the same crime as Hunter in this case, and that's a lot of people :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
Inaccurate editorializing according to you, not the facts presented it seems. 
Click to expand...




According to me, according to reality.

The fact is that the witness was asked if they had seen evidence of tampering, to which they replied "No".

The commentary is that the tweet you shared claim that the witness said that no tampering had occurred.

Honest, simple question; can you see the problem here or are you actually blind to it? 

 
Back
Top