The Truth Behind Hunter's Laptop

[Pommer]

The information that you seek is in the video. If you watch it again; I have confidence that you can comprehend it.

How’s about a timestamp for when I should start to pay attention?

 

[HARK!]

- The FBI gave the repair place a receipt for the laptop
- The repair place shows a receipt signed by Hunter for the laptop
- Multiple private pictures of Hunter smoking drugs - semi conscious, and with woman of ill repute have been shown from the laptop
- Multiple emails from Hunter's private server have been produced and shown from the laptop
- Hunter's former business partner came forward authenticating the emails from the laptop
- Copies of the hard drive from the laptop have been entered into congressional office
- The NYTimes has verified the laptop's existence and authenticated some of the material from the laptop
- Hunter has NEVER ONCE denied the existence of or authenticity of the laptop
- Even Adam Schiff has spoken about the existence of the laptop

And yet - some question it's existence. Remarkable

That's quite a comprehensive collection of valuable information concerning the authenticity of the HD.

However the question was regarding Grassley's statement: "In the end it was the Democrats who introduced Russian disinformation, from a Russian agent, into the investigative record."

He covers the specifics in the video.

 

[HARK!]

How’s about a timestamp for when I should start to pay attention?

Transcript​

2:45
on July 13 2020 then majority minority
2:49
leader Schumer Senator Warner then
2:52
speaker Pelosi and then chairman Schiff
2:55
sent a letter with a classified
2:58
attachment to the FBI
3:01
that letter expressed a purported belief
3:04
that Congress was the subject of a
3:07
foreign disinformation campaign
3:11
the latter was targeted at the Johnson
3:13
Grassley investigation
3:16
however
3:18
the classified attachment included
3:21
unclassified element that attempted and
3:26
failed to tie our work to a Russian
3:29
agent named Andre derkash
3:33
unsurprisingly those unclassified
3:36
elements were leaked to the press to
3:40
support a false campaign accusing
3:43
Senator Johnson of me of relying on
3:46
material from a Russian agent and thus
3:49
advancing Russian disinformation
3:53
of course it was pure nonsense that the
3:58
irresponsible media portrayed this all
4:01
as the truth
4:04
guess what then
4:06
chairman Chef claimed without any
4:08
evidence whatsoever that our oversight
4:11
work was rooted in Russian
4:13
disinformation
4:15
of course you know he conveniently left
4:18
out that our oversight work was actually
4:21
rooted in official U.S government and
4:25
Obama administration records
4:28
then guess what Senator Blumenthal also
4:31
wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post
4:34
accusing our investigation of quote
4:37
perpetuating Russian disinformation in
4:41
the U.S Senate end of Cold and then
4:44
guess what minority leader Schumer and
4:47
then ranking member Wyden tried to offer
4:50
a resolution in the Senate disparaging
4:54
our Biden investigation
4:56
they in a sense were basically calling
4:59
us Russian Stooges
5:02
pretty simple
5:04
that violated Senate rules in their
5:07
efforts and of course were appropriately
5:09
shut down
5:11
on July the 16th 2020 mere days after
5:15
the July 13th letter then ranking member
5:19
members Wyden and Peters wrote a letter
5:22
to me and Senator Johnson asking for a
5:26
briefing from the FBI's foreign
5:29
influence task force our staff
5:33
and the ranking member staff had already
5:36
now remember we had already received a
5:39
briefing
5:40
March of 2020 that put the issue to rest
5:45
so why another briefing the point being
5:49
there was no real purpose for another
5:52
briefing let alone a member level
5:54
briefing other than to further undermine
5:58
our investigation
6:00
some of our Democratic colleagues
6:02
weren't interested in anything but using
6:05
the briefing to try and destroy our
6:08
investigation
6:09
but at these at these Democrats
6:13
insistence
6:14
the FBI caved
6:17
in August 2020
6:19
Senator Johnson and I had that Infamous
6:22
briefing from the FBI that was needless
6:25
and then as we had feared the contents
6:30
of that briefing were later leaked to
6:33
The Washington Post even though the FBI
6:36
had promised us confidentiality
6:40
that leak outrageously and inaccurately
6:44
connected that FBI briefing to our
6:47
investigation in another effort to
6:51
falsely label our good government
6:54
oversight work as Russian disinformation
7:00
On The Wall Street Journal editorial
7:02
board was on top of it because that
7:05
board did the right thing and wrote a
7:08
piece about the briefing titled quote
7:11
the FBI's dubious briefing did the
7:16
bureau set up two GOP Senators at the
7:20
behest of Democrats end of quote so
7:23
simply put the briefing was unnecessary
7:28
and completely irrelevant to the
7:31
substance of our investigation it was
7:34
only done because the Democrats wanted
7:37
to do so they could try and smear us and
7:41
the FBI wrongly the FBI wrongly did
7:44
their biddy to this very day director
7:48
Ray refuses to provide Senator Johnson
7:51
and me as constitutional officers
7:54
records relating to that briefing
7:57
including the alleged intelligence basis
8:00
for IT director Ray has consistently
8:04
failed to perform duties required of his
8:07
position
8:09
now another example of this Democratic
8:12
disinformation campaign involved a
8:15
George Kent
8:16
former State Department Deputy assistant
8:20
general Senator Johnson and I ran a
8:23
transcribed interview with George Kent
8:27
before the interview Democrats
8:31
acquired material from that Russian
8:34
agent the same one that I mentioned
8:36
earlier
8:37
at the interview Democrats not
8:39
Republicans Democrats asked Mr Kent
8:42
about the same material Mr Kent said it
8:47
was
8:48
disinformation now think about that
8:52
after all the spears the Democrats were
8:55
throwing at the Two of Us
8:57
in the end it was the Democrats who
9:00
introduced racial disinformation from a
9:03
Russian agent into the investigative
9:06
record as an exhibit a foreign aged
9:11
whom our own intelligent committee
9:13
warned was actively seeking to influence
9:17
U.S politics
9:19
not me or Senator Johnson not our staff
9:23
it was the Democrats who inserted
9:26
disinformation from the Russians into
9:29
our official record

So there you have it, Who, What, When, Where, and How. We can only speculate as to Why.

I'd like to hear your best guess.

 

[Pommer]

Transcript​

2:45
on July 13 2020 then majority minority
2:49
leader Schumer Senator Warner then
2:52
speaker Pelosi and then chairman Schiff
2:55
sent a letter with a classified
2:58
attachment to the FBI
3:01
that letter expressed a purported belief
3:04
that Congress was the subject of a
3:07
foreign disinformation campaign
3:11
the latter was targeted at the Johnson
3:13
Grassley investigation
3:16
however
3:18
the classified attachment included
3:21
unclassified element that attempted and
3:26
failed to tie our work to a Russian
3:29
agent named Andre derkash
3:33
unsurprisingly those unclassified
3:36
elements were leaked to the press to
3:40
support a false campaign accusing
3:43
Senator Johnson of me of relying on
3:46
material from a Russian agent and thus
3:49
advancing Russian disinformation
3:53
of course it was pure nonsense that the
3:58
irresponsible media portrayed this all
4:01
as the truth
4:04
guess what then
4:06
chairman Chef claimed without any
4:08
evidence whatsoever that our oversight
4:11
work was rooted in Russian
4:13
disinformation
4:15
of course you know he conveniently left
4:18
out that our oversight work was actually
4:21
rooted in official U.S government and
4:25
Obama administration records
4:28
then guess what Senator Blumenthal also
4:31
wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post
4:34
accusing our investigation of quote
4:37
perpetuating Russian disinformation in
4:41
the U.S Senate end of Cold and then
4:44
guess what minority leader Schumer and
4:47
then ranking member Wyden tried to offer
4:50
a resolution in the Senate disparaging
4:54
our Biden investigation
4:56
they in a sense were basically calling
4:59
us Russian Stooges
5:02
pretty simple
5:04
that violated Senate rules in their
5:07
efforts and of course were appropriately
5:09
shut down
5:11
on July the 16th 2020 mere days after
5:15
the July 13th letter then ranking member
5:19
members Wyden and Peters wrote a letter
5:22
to me and Senator Johnson asking for a
5:26
briefing from the FBI's foreign
5:29
influence task force our staff
5:33
and the ranking member staff had already
5:36
now remember we had already received a
5:39
briefing
5:40
March of 2020 that put the issue to rest
5:45
so why another briefing the point being
5:49
there was no real purpose for another
5:52
briefing let alone a member level
5:54
briefing other than to further undermine
5:58
our investigation
6:00
some of our Democratic colleagues
6:02
weren't interested in anything but using
6:05
the briefing to try and destroy our
6:08
investigation
6:09
but at these at these Democrats
6:13
insistence
6:14
the FBI caved
6:17
in August 2020
6:19
Senator Johnson and I had that Infamous
6:22
briefing from the FBI that was needless
6:25
and then as we had feared the contents
6:30
of that briefing were later leaked to
6:33
The Washington Post even though the FBI
6:36
had promised us confidentiality
6:40
that leak outrageously and inaccurately
6:44
connected that FBI briefing to our
6:47
investigation in another effort to
6:51
falsely label our good government
6:54
oversight work as Russian disinformation
7:00
On The Wall Street Journal editorial
7:02
board was on top of it because that
7:05
board did the right thing and wrote a
7:08
piece about the briefing titled quote
7:11
the FBI's dubious briefing did the
7:16
bureau set up two GOP Senators at the
7:20
behest of Democrats end of quote so
7:23
simply put the briefing was unnecessary
7:28
and completely irrelevant to the
7:31
substance of our investigation it was
7:34
only done because the Democrats wanted
7:37
to do so they could try and smear us and
7:41
the FBI wrongly the FBI wrongly did
7:44
their biddy to this very day director
7:48
Ray refuses to provide Senator Johnson
7:51
and me as constitutional officers
7:54
records relating to that briefing
7:57
including the alleged intelligence basis
8:00
for IT director Ray has consistently
8:04
failed to perform duties required of his
8:07
position
8:09
now another example of this Democratic
8:12
disinformation campaign involved a
8:15
George Kent
8:16
former State Department Deputy assistant
8:20
general Senator Johnson and I ran a
8:23
transcribed interview with George Kent
8:27
before the interview Democrats
8:31
acquired material from that Russian
8:34
agent the same one that I mentioned
8:36
earlier
8:37
at the interview Democrats not
8:39
Republicans Democrats asked Mr Kent
8:42
about the same material Mr Kent said it
8:47
was
8:48
disinformation now think about that
8:52
after all the spears the Democrats were
8:55
throwing at the Two of Us
8:57
in the end it was the Democrats who
9:00
introduced racial disinformation from a
9:03
Russian agent into the investigative
9:06
record as an exhibit a foreign aged
9:11
whom our own intelligent committee
9:13
warned was actively seeking to influence
9:17
U.S politics
9:19
not me or Senator Johnson not our staff
9:23
it was the Democrats who inserted
9:26
disinformation from the Russians into
9:29
our official record

So there you have it, Who, What, When, Where, and How. We can only speculate as to Why.

I'd like to hear your best guess.

So the charge/thread is about how Democrats had asserted that the RHB laptop might have been “Russian disinformation” but the actual “Russian disinformation” was that the laptop was “Russian disinformation”?

No wonder I am conflused.

 

[perplexed]

- The FBI gave the repair place a receipt for the laptop
- The repair place shows a receipt signed by Hunter for the laptop

And yet - some question it's existence. Remarkable

The laptop as described by certain posters clearly does not exist, there is nothing remarkable about me pointing out the obvious.
I totally agree that FBI has a laptop.

 

[HARK!]

The laptop as described by Disciple Clint clearly does not exist, there is nothing remarkable about me pointing out the obvious.
I totally agree that FBI has a laptop.

You might find Post #60 to be informative.

 

[HARK!]

So the charge/thread is about how Democrats had asserted that the RHB laptop might have been “Russian disinformation” but the actual “Russian disinformation” was that the laptop was “Russian disinformation”?

No.

No wonder I am conflused.

Maybe it would help if you heard it from Grassley himself, instead of reading the transcript.

 

[perplexed]

You might find Post #60 to be informative.

Strange, I give a reply to Post #60 and you tell me to read it because I might find it informative
I totally accept that there is a laptop and there are some verified emails by Hunter Biden.
But if people tell me the laptop has magical properties then my response is that the laptop does not exist.

 

[HARK!]

Strange, I give a reply to Post #60 and you tell me to read it because I might find it informative
I totally accept that there is a laptop and there are some verified emails by Hunter Bidens emails
But if people tell the laptop has magical properties then my response is that the laptop does not exist.

What people? What magical properties?

 

[HARK!]

‘WHISTLEBLOWER BOMBSHELL’: This is the ‘biggest development’ of the Hunter Biden laptop story

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Where is your evidence to support this strawman rebuttal?

I served on a grand jury. That's just not how they work.

And what are you talking about "strawman"?? In what way is this a strawman? I simply corrected a misconception you have about how grand juries work.

 

[HARK!]

I served on a grand jury. That's just not how they work.

So now you proclaim that all grand juries work in the same manner? Where is your evidence?

And what are you talking about "strawman"??

Here is what I said:

I'm pretty sure that they can call any witnesses that they wish, and ask any questions that they wish, so long as it is relevant to the case.

Here is what you said:

they can't subpoena just anyone they want.

That's not what I said.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

So now you proclaim that all grand juries work the same? Where is your evidence?

I have first hand experience of how a grand jury works. Maybe it's possible they might be slightly different, but I presume they are pretty much the same across the country. So, it seems to me that you could just look up the laws concerning grand juries where ever this one was empaneled and prove me wrong. I'm betting you're not going to do that though.

Here is what I said:



Here is what you said:



That's not what I said.

Grand Juries do not "call witnesses." Better?

 

[HARK!]

I have first hand experience of how a grand jury works. Maybe it's possible they might be slightly different, but I presume they are pretty much the same across the country. So, it seems to me that you could just look up the laws concerning grand juries where ever this took place and prove me wrong. I'm betting you're not going to do that though

OK, so you have a hunch. I have a hunch too. I already presented my hunch. I didn't state my hunch as though it was a fact as you seemed to do. I have another hunch too. I have a hunch that my hunch is more accurate than your hunch.

BTW, I looked up the law before I presented my hunch, just to make sure that my memory hadn't failed me. I was studying the power of grand juries a couple of decades ago; and I wanted to get a pulse on whether my memory served me well.

You are free to look up the law to discredit my hunch if you wish; but your hunch doesn't trump my hunch.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

OK, so you have a hunch. I have a hunch too. I already presented my hunch. I didn't state my hunch as though it was a fact as you seemed to do. I have another hunch too. I have a hunch that my hunch is more accurate than your hunch.

BTW, I looked up the law before I presented my hunch, just to make sure that my memory hadn't failed me. I was studying the power of grand juries a couple of decades ago; and I wanted to get a pulse on whether my memory served me well.

You are free to look up the law to discredit my hunch if you wish; but your hunch doesn't trump my hunch.

Meh, you're probably right. Carry on.

 

[HARK!]

Grand Juries do not "call witnesses." Better?

Although a grand jury may have the right to subpoena and to have persons and documents called before it, this is almost always limited to evidence and witnesses presented by a prosecutor.

Grand juries in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Being a grand juror is probably the most powerful way that the average American can make his voice heard.

The power of the grand jury has been turned upside down; and it would do America justice if anyone who serves on one, studies what powers they really do have, and to exert those powers for good.

"Despite the vast power of grand juries, there is little in the way of judicial or legislative response designed to impose some supervisory restrictions on them.12"

Grand Jury Clause: Doctrine and Practice

www.law.cornell.edu

If you don't exercise your rights, you'll lose them.

 

[HARK!]

Senator Johnson concerning Blinken: "and now because of more information that's come out we know that he lied bold face to Congress about never emailing Hunter Biden."

 

[HARK!]

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, and revealed that Blinken was "the impetus" of the public statement signed in October 2020 that implied the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was disinformation.

Biden campaign, Blinken orchestrated intel letter to discredit Hunter Biden laptop story, ex-CIA official says

A former CIA official testified that Antony Blinken “played a role in the inception" of the public statement that claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

www.foxnews.com

 

[NxNW]

The FBI says that they have the HD in their possession

Link, please.

, and that the repair shop owner was given a receipt for the HD. That's good enough for me.

Now you suddenly trust the FBI?

 

[NxNW]

- The FBI gave the repair place a receipt for the laptop

Link, please.

- The repair place shows a receipt signed by Hunter for the laptop

Link, please.

- Multiple private pictures of Hunter smoking drugs - semi conscious, and with woman of ill repute have been shown from the laptop

Many photos of him have been faked.

- Multiple emails from Hunter's private server have been produced and shown from the laptop

Many emails have been faked.

- Hunter's former business partner came forward authenticating the emails from the laptop

Link, please.

- Copies of the hard drive from the laptop have been entered into congressional office

Which office?

- The NYTimes has verified the laptop's existence and authenticated some of the material from the laptop

The NYT doesn't have the authority to authenticate it.

- Hunter has NEVER ONCE denied the existence of or authenticity of the laptop

Nor has he confirmed its existence.

- Even Adam Schiff has spoken about the existence of the laptop

Schiff doesn't have the authority to authenticate it.

And yet - some question it's existence. Remarkable

I've yet to see a photo of it, or any other conclusive evidence of its existence. It's like the snipe that everyone talks about but nobody has actually seen.