5 ms·

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-... FBI has

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-... FBI has the laptop and only they can tell you. We know it contained real emails. There is enough evidence that I don't know what it would be besides real.

saberience 4y ago
So the FBI has Hunter Biden's laptop and emails? And what? What is the crime exactly? I also have a laptop with emails on it. What is the proposed crime of Hunter Biden and if the FBI has evidence of a crime, why wasn't he charged?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- angrycontrarian 4y ago
  > What is the crime exactly? Based on what has leaked to the public so far, I believe some combination of drug possession, prostitution, money laundering, corruption, and abuse of an elected office for personal profit. > if the FBI has evidence of a crime, why wasn't he charged? That's what a lot of people would like to know.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    It takes time. It’s similar to people wondering why Matt Gaetz hasn’t been charged with sex trafficking yet, or Lauren Boebart with numerous violations of election rules. And let’s not forget Trump and various others for Jan 6th, let alone what we’re seeing unfold now with these documents he took. Federal criminal investigations like this take a bit of time. And no, this isn’t whataboutism. Anyone who breaks the law, particularly those who are “in charge” need to be held accountable. This includes Hunter Biden if he broke a law, but it also includes Trump and others.
    - someguydave 4y ago
      We are still waiting on Hillary’s emails to be prosecuted.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        Sure prosecute her too. She can sit next to Trump in a jail cell. But the more likely answer is that after relentless grilling at the behest of Republican lawmakers under Trump and actual testimony there probably wasn’t anything there worth pursuing from a legal perspective so no charges were filed.
        myko 4y ago
        There's no reason to prosecute her, though. She complied with all relevant requests and was following the steps of Colin Powell, her predecessor, with respect to how she set her email server up. The main difference between her and Powell is she attempted to preserve relevant emails for the government, while Powell recommended deleting them all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell...
        ericmay 4y ago
        Oh I agree, I’m just setting aside the typical whataboutism that springs to life when we’re talking about other ongoing criminal investigations. “But Hunter Biden’s laptop!” “But Hillary’s emails!” Etc.
        someguydave 4y ago
        one man's "whataboutism" is another man's "rule of law". If the issue is that these laws are expansive, vague, and difficult to enforce then they should be eliminated, not selectively enforced.
        ModernMech 4y ago
- degrees57 4y ago
  Why wasn't he charged? The FBI has a history of not prosecuting crimes if they think they are going to lose. 40 years ago it was a brag: "We've got a 100% success rate on convictions." James Comey would later call them chickenshit for not prosecuting actual criminals if they thought they would lose. In their mind, it is better to let criminals go free than to break their 100% conviction record.

saberience 4y ago

So the FBI has Hunter Biden's laptop and emails? And what? What is the crime exactly? I also have a laptop with emails on it. What is the proposed crime of Hunter Biden and if the FBI has evidence of a crime, why wasn't he charged?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
angrycontrarian 4y ago
> What is the crime exactly? Based on what has leaked to the public so far, I believe some combination of drug possession, prostitution, money laundering, corruption, and abuse of an elected office for personal profit. > if the FBI has evidence of a crime, why wasn't he charged? That's what a lot of people would like to know.
- ericmay 4y ago
  It takes time. It’s similar to people wondering why Matt Gaetz hasn’t been charged with sex trafficking yet, or Lauren Boebart with numerous violations of election rules. And let’s not forget Trump and various others for Jan 6th, let alone what we’re seeing unfold now with these documents he took. Federal criminal investigations like this take a bit of time. And no, this isn’t whataboutism. Anyone who breaks the law, particularly those who are “in charge” need to be held accountable. This includes Hunter Biden if he broke a law, but it also includes Trump and others.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    We are still waiting on Hillary’s emails to be prosecuted.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Sure prosecute her too. She can sit next to Trump in a jail cell. But the more likely answer is that after relentless grilling at the behest of Republican lawmakers under Trump and actual testimony there probably wasn’t anything there worth pursuing from a legal perspective so no charges were filed.
      - myko 4y ago
        There's no reason to prosecute her, though. She complied with all relevant requests and was following the steps of Colin Powell, her predecessor, with respect to how she set her email server up. The main difference between her and Powell is she attempted to preserve relevant emails for the government, while Powell recommended deleting them all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell...
        ericmay 4y ago
        Oh I agree, I’m just setting aside the typical whataboutism that springs to life when we’re talking about other ongoing criminal investigations. “But Hunter Biden’s laptop!” “But Hillary’s emails!” Etc.
        someguydave 4y ago
        one man's "whataboutism" is another man's "rule of law". If the issue is that these laws are expansive, vague, and difficult to enforce then they should be eliminated, not selectively enforced.
        ModernMech 4y ago
degrees57 4y ago
Why wasn't he charged? The FBI has a history of not prosecuting crimes if they think they are going to lose. 40 years ago it was a brag: "We've got a 100% success rate on convictions." James Comey would later call them chickenshit for not prosecuting actual criminals if they thought they would lose. In their mind, it is better to let criminals go free than to break their 100% conviction record.