The Ukraine - place blame where it TRULY belongs

[Lesh]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to talk out of your knowledge level.

You didn't

 

[Delldude]

Wouldn’t his answer make complete sense if in fact he had not actually seen the laptop in question?

Answer? He changed his response several times. He own's it.

What do you think a police detective would surmise from his replies?

 

[Delldude]

No one has ESTABLISHED either ownership or content.

Speaks volumes

Well, if I were him or his father, and it wasn't Hunters, a vehement denial on record would really go to to great lengths.

Has there been one?

 

[Delldude]

You didn't

Being you had to reply shows I did.

 

[BackAgain]

I see I have effectively shown the flaws in your bullshit so you now engage in ad hominem attacks.

Fine.

And "In other cases, a chain of custody might be quite irrelevant.". I would be interested in when that might be accurate

Change your glasses. And I engaged in no more ad hominem than you did. Mild stuff even at that, kid.

Chain of custody might make a huge difference if the identity of an item of evidence (being offered into evidence at trial) is challenged on that basis — IF the evidence is of a type where it might have been altered or substituted.

Getting an item into evidence really boils down to “is it relevant to a material issue” and “is there a sufficient basis that it is what it purports to be”?

But let’s talk about a photograph from some persons cell phone which ends up in a defendant’s computer. Let’s say it is relevant because it shows the defendant doing the crime or committing an act that furthers the crime. In this event, the sole remaining question would be whether it is what it purports to be. Forensic analysis might prove that it is not a faked image. If so, who gives a shit whether it was taken on my phone or yours? Who cares if 10 cops handled the phone and the laptop, in that case? It wouldn’t make any difference. The forensic analysis proving the authenticity of the photo would make it admissible. “Chain of custody” would be of no concern.

 

[Slade3200]

Answer? He changed his response several times. He own's it.

What do you think a police detective would surmise from his replies?

You didn’t answer my question. Would the response he gave in the quote you posted make sense of he had not seen the laptop in question?

to answer you question, I don’t need to guess what a police detective would surmise because actual investigators have looked into this and I have seen no legal action against Hunter. So I guess they have surmised that no laws have been broken. But I guess you think you know more than they do huh?

 

[Lesh]

Change your glasses. And I engaged in no more ad hominem than you did. Mild stuff even at that, kid.

Chain of custody might make a huge difference if the identity of an item of evidence (being offered into evidence at trial) is challenged on that basis — IF the evidence is of a type where it might have been altered or substituted.

Getting an item into evidence really boils down to “is it relevant to a material issue” and “is there a sufficient basis that it is what it purports to be”?

But let’s talk about a photograph from some persons cell phone which ends up in a defendant’s computer. Let’s say it is relevant because it shows the defendant doing the crime or committing an act that furthers the crime. In this event, the sole remaining question would be whether it is what it purports to be. Forensic analysis might prove that it is not a faked image. If so, who gives a shit whether it was taken on my phone or yours? Who cares if 10 cops handled the phone and the laptop, in that case? It wouldn’t make any difference. The forensic analysis proving the authenticity of the photo would make it admissible. “Chain of custody” would be of no concern.

All of that depends on forensics proving that the image you're talking about was not faked.

It would have to show CLEAR evidence of a crime AND be indisputably real and in context

 

[BackAgain]

"Claims and allegations". Yea that's shocking .

Newsflash...you folks are ALWAYS making "claims and allegations".

Should Hunter be found to have committed some crime he should be punished. I'm only slightly more interested in that than I was as to the issues with Billy Carter

Like you folks did to Trump? Wow. It must hurt when the shoe is on the other foot. Of course, when your folks did it, it turned out time and time again to be manufactured crap. Or Pee as the case may be.

But the concerns about Hunter (as you likely know but don’t care to honestly admit) are less about him than about his father. And that is exactly why there has been so much stonewalling by the Dims and the media. The very idea of 10% for the Big Guy if papa Joe is that “Big Guy” goes to the heart of the monumental question of whether Senile Joe should be impeached and removed.

 

[BackAgain]

All of that depends on forensics proving that the image you're talking about was not faked.

It would have to show CLEAR evidence of a crime AND be indisputably real and in context

Stop your quibbling. I addressed your ignorant question about “Chain of custody;” and we are not trying the case. In fact, so far, there is no case.

 

[Delldude]

You didn’t answer my question. Would the response he gave in the quote you posted make sense of he had not seen the laptop in question?

to answer you question, I don’t need to guess what a police detective would surmise because actual investigators have looked into this and I have seen no legal action against Hunter. So I guess they have surmised that no laws have been broken. But I guess you think you know more than they do huh?

He never addressed that point.

Headline from the CNN article:

Hunter Biden dodges questions on laptop seized by FBI​

Washington (CNN)President Joe Biden's son Hunter dodged several questions in a new interview about a controversial laptop that is tied to him and was seized by the FBI in 2019.

The FBI took possession of a laptop that is purported to belong to Hunter Biden. Investigators subpoenaed the laptop in 2019 from a computer shop in Delaware, CNN previously reported.
A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop. But the FBI is still working through the content and the integrity of what is on it, because it was not in Hunter Biden's sole possession the whole time before it was handed over to the FBI.
It's unclear whether the laptop and its contents are relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation into Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings, primarily in China, CNN previously reported. Federal prosecutors in Delaware are working with the FBI and IRS to examine multiple financial issues, including whether he and his associates violated tax laws and money laundering laws.

Actual investigators? Only ones I'm aware of so far is the Federal governmet and Delaware.....and you know these investigations take a lot of time, particularly tax issues.

 

[Slade3200]

He never addressed that point.

Headline from the CNN article:


Actual investigators? Only ones I'm aware of so far is the Federal governmet and Delaware.....and you know these investigations take a lot of time, particularly tax issues.

You quoted him. I’m asking if that quote that you posted makes sense if he had not actually seen the laptop in question.

Trumps DOJ and FBI had the allegations and the materials for months while they were in charge and nothing came of it. If a team can’t find anything in months then that should tell you a little something

 

[Delldude]

You quoted him. I’m asking if that quote that you posted makes sense if he had not actually seen the laptop in question.

Trumps DOJ and FBI had the allegations and the materials for months while they were in charge and nothing came of it. If a team can’t find anything in months then that should tell you a little something

No , he immediately flip flopped all around the subject like a guilty child.

Like I said before, this was a perfect chance to totally deny it was his laptop, deny what has been tossed out there concerning the contents, why didn't he?

'No idea but it certainly was a possibility'.

 

[Lesh]

Stop your quibbling. I addressed your ignorant question about “Chain of custody;” and we are not trying the case. In fact, so far, there is no case.

Actually you didn't and it was hardly ignorant.

But keep flailing

 

[Lesh]

Like I said before, this was a perfect chance to totally deny it was his laptop,

How you deny ownership of something you can't see?

 

[Slade3200]

No , he immediately flip flopped all around the subject like a guilty child.

Like I said before, this was a perfect chance to totally deny it was his laptop, deny what has been tossed out there concerning the contents, why didn't he?

'No idea but it certainly was a possibility'.

I see by your avoidance of answering my question that you got the point.

How can he deny that it isn’t his laptop if he hasn’t seen the laptop. To you keep tabs on all your old phones and laptops. If somebody claimed to have one of your old devices could you guarantee that it wasn’t yours without seeing it?

 

[BackAgain]

Actually you didn't and it was hardly ignorant.

But keep flailing

Yeah. I did. And you know it. You’re the one flailing. Your contention was obviously ignorant.

You simply don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s why when you speak, you tend to expose your ignorance.

 

[Lesh]

Yeah. I did. And you know it. You’re the one flailing. Your contention was obviously ignorant.

You simply don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s why when you speak, you tend to expose your ignorance.

Well this discussion appears to be over...

 

[BackAgain]

Well this discussion appears to be over...

Of course it is. You spoke out of your ass, you were wrong, your error was demonstrated, you can’t provide a meaningful rebuttal and when you nevertheless attempted to declare victory, that nonsense got shot down, too.

Yep. Put a fork in it. It’s done.

 

[BackAgain]

Back to something more fully ON topic. Ukraine didn’t do anything to Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine, has engaged in a protracted military campaign in a manner constituting depraved war criminality and won’t cease its barbarity.

Who is to blame for the savage Russian war against Ukraine? Russia. And that means Putin.

 

[Lesh]

Back to something more fully ON topic. Ukraine didn’t do anything to Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine, has engaged in a protracted military campaign in a manner constituting depraved war criminality and won’t cease its barbarity.

Who is to blame for the savage Russian war against Ukraine? Russia. And that means Putin.

We agree on something...of course you had to test the wind before you took a side.