How much weight would you put on his claim that they are not real?

"Sure, the U.S. Treasury Department may have declared one of his former associates—Ukrainian parliamentarian Andrii Derkach, who worked with Giuliani on his hunt for dirt on the Bidens—to be an “active Russian agent.” But that’s some Deep State talk, he added. “The chance that Derkach is a Russian spy is no better than 50/50.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-g...dirt-on-bidens

And because no where in the reported story does Andrii Derkach make an appearance. Unless you have some inside information, the hardware was left at a repair shop by Hunter Biden. The FBI was contacted through an intermediary, then given to the FBI under a Grand Jury subpoena. A copy was given through the mediator of the repair shop guy to Robert Costello who is Giuliani's attorney.

Given that this story does include the FBI, Barr's silence is certainly not a sign of support by the DOJ for the Rudy story.

Exactly. Even if authentic, the email is a thank you for a possible meeting in the future. A meeting that was never shown to have ever happened. That's not a smoking gun, it's a bunch of hot air being blown out of Trump's and Giuliani's backsides.

Not sure what you mean, everyone went crazy when Comey pulled his stunt in 2016. I doubt Barr could say anything either way without getting the same treatment. Ditto for Wray. They actually aren't supposed to comment.

never stopped him before.

The FBI doesn't seem to think the laptop or emails are worth pursuing, they didn't present it to the Senate as evidence against Hunter and they're not talking about it now. But you've convinced me, Hunter Biden is not a good candidate for President and I'm not voting for him.

The testimony of the computer repair shop guy that Hunter Biden left it there and then didn’t pick it up Is evidence of authenticity. If Hunter Biden had the emails on his computer, it is reasonable to assume they are authentic. I am glad I could help you with this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901

(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

(b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of evidence that satisfies the requirement:

(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.

Testimony be damned. Where's the invoice with Biden's signature?

Never involved a Presidential candidate a few weeks before the election either. They'd be asking for his head on a platter. Smart move on his part.

Joseph Biden is not involved. The son is not the father.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hun...-fbi-paperwork

Why hasn't Fox News verified that it's Biden's signature? Seems it would be a simple thing to do.

Geeze, pay attention

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ive-c-n2578275

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...aire-pay-10-m/

HRC is not Podesta, but that never stopped anyone.

I don't work for FOX, not sure why you would ask me that.

You are stuck on meetings

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ive-c-n2578275

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...aire-pay-10-m/

If Biden was taking money and not reporting it, I'm sure it still wouldn't make a difference to you. Only Trump could possibly be compromised by supposed foreign money, isn't that right?

Without Fox News bothering to verify the signature on the invoice, they are spreading mere hearsay. By linking to their hearsay, you are also spreading hearsay. Hearsay is worthless and not evidence.

Hand waving it doesn't make it go away if the emails are legit

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ive-c-n2578275

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...aire-pay-10-m/

You've just shown you don't know what hearsay is. LOL. They produced the invoice. So has other publications.

hiding some truth in a pile of lies is SOP for disinformation operations.

How can you sort out which is which?

Fox straight up, in the link you posted, admitted that they didn't bother to verify the signature.

Do you have any evidence that repair guy hid truth in a pile of lies or are you speculating? Do you have evidence this is a "disinformation operation?"

You think the FBI won't be able to find out which is which? You think the metadata can be faked too?

So, is that what determines the authenticity of the signature? FoxNews? lol

Get a grip, they provided the invoice, AND told you they didn't have an expert look at it.

They provided a piece of paper that they said had Biden's signature, with nothing to back that up. Again, the FBI didn't think the laptop was worthwhile so the crafters of this scam had to go searching for marks.

The FBI retrieved the hardware with a grand jury subpoena. And the slip with the signature is from the repair guy. I understand this is hard for you, I'm not sure I can help you.

My theory is that since it’s a fake invoice they know they’d have to admit that if they tried to authenticate it, so it’s really better for them not to try and hope there’s enough rubes out there. But it looks like there’s not since nobody is talking about it because the story is so ridiculous to just rely on Rudy Giuliani and a screenshot on his phone as proof. Rock and a hard place.

Someone is working very, very hard to convince everyone that there is something to this whole Hunter Biden thing. Very hard.

FBI did nothing with it. They could have given it to the Senate when the Senate cleared Hunter Biden of all charges, but didn't. The con failed and the con artists shopped around for new marks.

Same with those working very hard to convince everyone it's nothing.

you just said the FBI won't or shouldn't comment on ongoing matters.
So don't use them to support any argument of yours.


What we do have is IC reports of ongoing Russian interference efforts.

Do tell how you know the FBI did nothing with it? I haven't seen the FBI comment. What did you hear and from where?

Those statements are not contradictory.

"You think the FBI won't be able to find out which is which?"
"They actually aren't supposed to comment."

There is no contradiction.

You have nothing with regards to the Biden laptop, well, almost nothing, you have speculation.

I've only heard about the laptop since Giuliani ate the bait and sent it to the media, not when the Senate was investigating Biden. The FBI had it then, why wasn't it shown to the Senate? I rather think you are underestimating the impact of this information if it were true.

Why would the FBI share info on an open investigation with the Senate? Is there a precedent for this? If so, can you cite it? I know you can't. Do you know how many times we've heard in testimony "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation" from the FBI or JD in front of the Senate?

So now, a few days later, how's this "incriminating laptop" scam going? Like all Trump schemes, backwards and downwards on a sea of easily-disputed lies and laughable yells about fraud the other guy is doing. In short, it's yet another bust. But typical of everything he gets involved in. It would be hilarious if all he was was a failed real estate executive and two-bit reality face. But he sits in the highest office in the USA. So he is taking everyone down with him if it kills him.

When the Senate is investigating someone, you don't think they should get information?? The *Senate* investigated and cleared Hunter Biden. The FBI didn't think the laptop was evidence worthy of being presented to the Senate in the investigation of Hunter Biden. I don't know how much clearer this can be made.

No, rightwingers have the hook firmly set in their jaws. They can't break loose. I've heard them, they can't imagine how anyone can vote for Biden after hearing about the emails on the laptop. Anyone with a brain after all would see the trail of corruption.

LOL, well if you don't know, I guess the conversation is over, thankfully. But no, the FBI does not share info of ongoing investigations with anyone, including the Senate.

Really, you don't think the Senate investigating someone means that the Federal Bureau of Investigations is going to be involved, given that the Senate is a Federal institution? What did you think the FBI was gathering information FOR? The Senate was investigating Hunter Biden. THE SENATE. They're not a bunch of dusty academics parked in a distant room muttering to themselves, they're the legislative branch of the federal government and they get evidence from the federal bureau of investigation. They're all part of the same thing. The US Senate has cleared Hunter Biden of corruption charges. Sorry if that wasn't the outcome you devoutly prayed for.