Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Hunter Biden laptop contains 459 legal violations: watchdog group A team of cyber detectives has produced a†

By HatetheSwamp
October 21, 2022 3:16 am
Category: Crime

(0.0 from 0 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com

Share
Rules of
the Post

Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

A team of cyber detectives has produced a 630-page report detailing the findings of a year-long investigation into the contents of Hunter Bidenís laptop which they say contains 459 violations of state and federal laws and regulations.

*****

Marco Polo, a nonprofit research group founded by Garrett Ziegler to expose corruption and blackmail, performed an in-depth exploration of the laptop that President Bidenís son left at a Delaware repair store in 2019.

The report†produced by Zieglerís team weighs in at a whopping 1 gigabyte because of the large number of screenshots taken from the laptop.

Crimes allegedly committed by Hunter Biden include ďserving as an agent for foreign entities without disclosing it, tax fraud, and falsifying business documents Ö prostitution, non-consensual pornography, and distribution of narcotics,Ē reported The Daily Wire.


Let pb just say this about that. Let him make this perfectly clear.

Among real Americans, due process reigns. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone. Even Bidens. Still, where there's smoke there's fire.

Two and a half weeks before the midterms, though, the evils of the Biden Crime Family is again in the news.

You Blue MAGA Swampcultists asked for this.

Thanks.


Cited and related links:

  1. dailywire.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Hunter Biden laptop contains 459 legal violations: watchdog group A team of cyber detectives has produced a†":

  1. by oldedude on October 21, 2022 4:56 am
    "ďserving as an agent for foreign entities without disclosing it, tax fraud, and falsifying business documents Ö prostitution, non-consensual pornography, and distribution of narcotics,Ē"

    And this is without the banking information, which may or may not be disclosed until there's an arrest made. It should look something like: "Tax evasion, violating trade and sanction laws under (whatever code they use). Each time he transferred illicit funds in an attempt to hide their origan, it's 10 years, $10K. Structuring funds is a stand-alone charge (meaning it doesn't need another illicit act to charge). 10 years/ $10K each time. As a comparison, Hill could have caught ~950 years for what she admitted to under oath.


  2. by Ponderer on October 21, 2022 8:55 am

    I have said over and over again, if Hunter or Joe have done anything illegal, indict them, try them, convict them, and imprison them. Knock yourselves out.

    Why is it that whenever the right thinks they have a slam dunk against an enemy, they never manage to get to any of those parts of the process? They've got the wild accusation part down pat. But they never actually get to the legal proceedings part. Even when they control the House, the Senate, and the White House?

    We had to listen to years and years of your pig-ignorant, baseless accusations against Democrats pulled out of some far right, white supremacist blogger's ass or something. And when Republicans were finally in power and could have gone after anyone they wanted to with the Democrats completely unable to stop them, they didn't do shitt.

    They have proven over and over again that they don't really care about someone breaking the law or even numerous laws (as long as it's their guy doing it). No, they are not upset by any laws being broken. The law really means nothing to the Republican party if they think they can't get caught.

    Actually taking cases against Democrats to trial and seeing that justice is done is not anywhere near as important to them as being able just to use the frivolous, unproven accusations against them to sucker the brainless morons who swallow their bullshit during election time.

    They just want to whip up propaganda against any given Democrat for its own sake rather than let their asinine nonsense get laughed out of court and proven to be the flaming bullshit that it always is.

    Just like The Big Lie has been. Several dozen times.




  3. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2022 9:04 am

    po,

    There is a decent point buried in your post. GOPs tend not to do anything when they have the power to do something to defend the integrity of the government. And, that may very well happen after they take Congress.

    However, the shame that is the J6 Committee, built on hearsay and gossip and rumor as evidence may just motivate GOPs actually to do something this time around. We'll see.


  4. by Curt_Anderson on October 21, 2022 10:17 am
    Why would Garrett Ziegler a former Trump administration staffer, have possession of Hunter Biden's laptop? That would compromise any evidence that might be used against H. Biden in any sort of trial.

    Are these the same cyber detectives that Mike Lindell has hired to uncover proof that Trump won the 2020 election?


  5. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2022 10:22 am

    I'm not sure I know your point. There may be 1,000 people who have direct copies of Hunter's hard drive. I'm a little miffed that I don't have one.


  6. by Curt_Anderson on October 21, 2022 10:27 am
    If it's a "copy" we don't know whether or not it was altered. So it has no evidentiary value.


  7. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2022 10:31 am

    I think that you're dreaming. Tony Bobulinski and others have provided, apparently, thousands of documents that confirm that the material on the laptop is genuine.

    But, hey buddy. Keep a good thought.


  8. by oldedude on October 21, 2022 11:55 am
    "If it's a "copy" we don't know whether or not it was altered. So it has no evidentiary value."
    Says the guy who takes hearsay as absolute truth. If it were against Trump... I guess that good old double standard wins again.


  9. by HatetheSwamp on October 21, 2022 11:59 am

    There is some hypocrisy there, eh?


  10. by Curt_Anderson on October 21, 2022 5:25 pm
    Like most Trump cult members, you two don't know what is and isn't hearsay. Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony before the J6 committee was NOT hearsay for multiple reasons. Importantly she was testifying to what the Secret Service driver/agent (Tony Ornato, as I recall) told her not to any direct knowledge of what happened in the presidential SUV. She was under oath and it has never been refuted under oath. Her recounting of what she was told was probably accurate. What Ornato told her probably was embellished by Ornato.

    As for the "cyber detectives", I suspect that they have been scamming Trump cultists. Mike Lindell paid "cyber experts" millions to prove that Trump won the last election. The supposed evidence he paid for never amounted to anything. It was a similar story in Arizona where the Cyber Ninjas supposedly would invalidate Biden's win there. These cyber scammers remind me of the con men/tailors in the "Emperor's New Clothes" fairy tale.



  11. by oldedude on October 21, 2022 8:00 pm
    Her recounting of what she was told was probably accurate. What Ornato told her probably was embellished by Ornato.
    Did Ornato testify? It's the fact that J6 couldn't find anyone to testify that actually said those things. Ergo. Hearsay.


  12. by Curt_Anderson on October 21, 2022 10:21 pm
    OD,
    Supposedly, Tony Ornato "wanted" to testify under oath to refute Hutchinson. He didn't. Ornato quit the Secret Service and took a job with Trump. I don't think it's known if Ornato made a serious attempt to testify before the J6 committee or if they wanted to hear from him.

    However, if Ornato really wanted to refute Hutchinson under oath, all he needed to do was find a notary public. They would have asked Ornato: "Do you solemnly state that the evidence you shall give in this issue (or matter) shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"


  13. by oldedude on October 22, 2022 3:02 am
    Let me put it a different way. The closest they could come is to have her say that someone else told her so and so. They still didn't bring anyone that actually saw it. There are many problems with this.
    1. Was she told the truth.
    2. Was she paid (either financial gain, or to get a better job within the administration/ house membership.
    3. Remember basic communications class? Sender=>message=>receiver=>message=> 3rd party=>message. It's that old game of telephone.

    All I'm asking for is for them to get people that actually witnessed what happened, NOT someone who heard from someone else. They could do have done this with all the pieces and parts she talked about.

    I also doubt the veracity of her testimony, but that's not "evidence" she's lying.

    The dims have a tendency to have "witnesses" that have their own version of events, much like Kavanaugh hearings. Their "star witness" wasn't even at the party she claims to be raped at. It appears they're just being paid off to lie and not have the opportunity to be cross examined.


  14. by oldedude on October 22, 2022 9:54 am
    I have said over and over again, if Hunter or Joe have done anything illegal, indict them, try them, convict them, and imprison them. Knock yourselves out.

    Why is it that whenever the right thinks they have a slam dunk against an enemy, they never manage to get to any of those parts of the process?


    This is the fight we've talked about at nauseum. It is the "enforcement arms that would not act. The same folks that would not act when they knew illegal evidence was being presented to federal judges.

    "The former FBI special agent who allegedly suppressed negative information about Hunter Biden was also accused of flirting with a witness and concealing her sexual relationship with one of his agents when he was the lead investigator in a high-profile political corruption case that ended a congressman's career.

    Today, Timothy Thibault, 55, is at the center of an escalating scandal after whistleblowers accused him of improper conduct during the investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop after it was dropped off at a computer repair store in Delaware.

    As one of 13 special agents tasked with investigating the computer contents, Thibault is alleged to have miscategorized damaging evidence as 'disinformation' and attempted to 'close a stream' of derogatory information in the lead up to the 2020 elections."



    These are a number of alleged ďintelligenceĒ officials who knowingly lied, deceived and misled the American people concerning Hunter Bidenís laptop and the incriminating evidence found on it in order to protect the current illegitimate occupant of the White House. The question we should all be asking ourselves is, when are we going to arrest and prosecute these criminals?

    Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didnít respond.

    Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit: ďYes, I stand by the statement made AT THE TIME, and would call attention to its 5th paragraph. I think sounding such a cautionary note AT THE TIME was appropriate.Ē

    Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary, now runs a public policy institute at California State University: Declined comment.

    John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didnít respond.

    Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University: Didnít respond.

    Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank: Didnít respond.

    John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University: Didnít respond.

    Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University: Didnít respond.

    Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems: Didnít respond.

    Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico: Didnít respond.

    Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism: Didnít respond.

    Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director: ďThe letter explicitly stated that we didnít know if the emails were genuine, but that we were concerned about Russian disinformation efforts. I spent 25 years as a Soviet/Russian analyst. Given the context of what the Russians were doing at the time (and continue to do ó Ukraine being just the latest example), I considered the cautionary warning to be prudent.Ē

    Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director: ďAs far as I know I do [stand by the statement] but Iím kind of busy right now.Ē

    John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff: Didnít respond.

    Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group:
    Didnít respond.

    Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didnít respond.

    Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff: Didnít respond.

    Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel: Didnít respond.

    David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager: ďThank you for reaching out. I have no further comment at this time.Ē

    Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis: Didnít respond.

    Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didnít respond.

    Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didnít respond.

    John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didnít respond.

    David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer: Didnít respond.

    Kristin Wood, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard: Didnít respond.

    David Buckley, former CIA inspector general: Didnít respond.

    Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and targeting officer, now senior fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute: Didnít respond.

    Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didnít respond.

    James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence office: Didnít respond.

    David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst: Didnít respond.

    Janice Cariens, former CIA operational support officer: Didnít respond.

    Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer: Didnít respond.

    Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst: Didnít respond.

    Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didnít respond.

    Roger Zane George, former national intelligence officer: Didnít respond.

    Steven L. Hall, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didnít respond.

    Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer: Didnít respond.

    Don Hepburn, former national security executive, now president of Boanerges Solutions LLC: ďMy position has not changed any. I believe the Russians made a huge effort to alter the course of the election . . . The Russians are masters of blending truth and fiction and making something feel incredibly real when itís not. Nothing I have seen really changes my opinion. I canít tell you what part is real and what part is fake, but the thesis still stands for me, that it was a media influence hit job.Ē

    Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIAís Kent School of Intelligence Analysis: Didnít respond.

    Ron Marks, former CIA officer: Didnít respond.

    Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the International Spy Museum: ďI donít have any comment. I would need a little more information.Ē

    Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIAís Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, now at University of New Mexico: ďI have not seen any information since then that would alter the decision behind signing the letter. Thatís all I can go into. The whole issue was highly politicized and I donít want to deal with that. I still stand by that letter.Ē

    Gerald A. OíShea, former CIA senior operations officer: Didnít respond.

    Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the director: Didnít respond.

    John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer: Declined to comment.

    Stephen Slick, former National Security Council senior director for intelligence programs:
    Didnít respond.

    Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for global issues: Didnít respond.

    Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy executive director: Didnít respond.

    David Terry, former National Intelligence Collection Board chairman: Couldnít be reached.

    Greg Treverton, former National Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: ďIíll pass. I havenít followed the case recently.Ē

    Winston Wiley, former CIA director of analysis: Couldnít be reached.


    So according to Curt's theory, if you don't respond, you're guilty. Just like Ornato.

    In late summer 2020, the mother of all October surprises emerged: an abandoned Hunter Biden laptop filled to the brim with information about Hunter's drug and sex addictions (scurrilous but arguably irrelevant to Joe) plus massive amounts of information about Hunter's shady business deals with America's geopolitical enemies, all of which he obtained thanks to the Biden family business (AKA Joe Biden using his office to sell out America). T he tech companies immediately censored the story, but, even more tellingly, the FBI claimed that the manifestly real material was, in fact, "disinformation." Now, though, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) says FBI whistleblowers have emerged to say that the FBI lied. Suh-prise, suh-prise, suh-prise, as Gomer Pyle would have said.


    "The FBI is in possession of ďvoluminous evidenceĒ of ďpotential criminal conductĒ by President Joe Bidenís son Hunter Biden related to his overseas business dealings with China and Ukraine, according to new whistleblower disclosures.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who previously released whistleblower claims alleging that evidence on Hunter Bidenís criminality was wrongly labeled ďdisinformationĒ within the bureau, made the revelations in a Thursday letter obtained by the Washington Examiner. It was sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss ó who is running the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden.

    The whistleblower allegations relate to Hunter, as well as James Biden, the president's brother, regarding the duoís dealings with the Chinese government-linked energy conglomerate CEFC China Energy. They also relate to the younger Bidenís work for Ukrainian gas giant Burisma Holdings. Grassley said his staff "reviewed the unclassified records" supporting the whistleblower claims.

    ďBased on recent protected disclosures to my office, the FBI has within its possession significant, impactful, and voluminous evidence with respect to potential criminal conduct by Hunter Biden and James Biden,Ē Grassley said in the letter.


    So long story short, the information is there, pedojoe and his swamp refuse to move on it. AND DOJ & FBI want to keep all the information in safe keeping for themselves.
    dailymail.co.uk
    thewashingtonstandard.com
    washingtonexaminer.com


  15. by Curt_Anderson on October 22, 2022 11:38 am
    OD,
    I will address your points.

    1. Was she told the truth. It may have been true that there was a confrontation in the SUV and that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol to take part in the insurrection but Ornato exaggerated and embellished the incident to impress a young woman. In his story Ornato sounds tough standing up to a president.

    2. Was she paid (either financial gain, or to get a better job within the administration/ house membership. No evidence that Hutchinson received a financial gain or job offer because of her testimony. On the other hand, Tony Ornato quit the Secret Service to work for Trump.

    3. Remember basic communications class? Sender=>message=>receiver=>message=> 3rd party=>message. It's that old game of telephone. Hutchinson was testifying to what she was told not that she witnessed events in the SUV. She said that she was was paraphrasing not quoting. I think you really understand the distinction. For example in a murder trial, a witness who didn't see a murder happen might be asked by the prosecutor, "what did the defendant say to you afterwards?" The witness responds, "He said 'I didn't mean to kill her'". Would you discount the witness testimony as hearsay?

    All I'm asking for is for them to get people that actually witnessed what happened, NOT someone who heard from someone else. They could do have done this with all the pieces and parts she talked about.
    As I said, Ornato and Engle wouldn't or didn't go under oath to refute Hutchinson even though they could have a notary public take their oral or written testimony. Plust there was some corroboration.

    "Breaking news, a source telling CNN a Washington police officer who was in Trump's motorcade on Jan. 6 has corroborated details of the heated exchange Trump had with his Secret Service detail when he was told he could not go to the U.S. Capitol and he wanted to go," CNN's Erin Burnett reported.

    "This development comes as a government watchdog reveals the Secret Service erased messages from the day of the insurrection ó after investigators asked for them," Burnett added.

    salon.com


  16. by oldedude on October 23, 2022 7:56 am
    Welcome to politics. Deal with it. You want a less than honorable system, this is part of it.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Hunter Biden laptop contains 459 legal violations: watchdog group A team of cyber detectives has produced a†"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

An Ďimposter Christianityí is threatening American democracy
Politics by islander     January 21, 2023 9:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (59 comments) [746 views]


Ronna McDaniel wins re-election to fourth term as RNC chair
Politics by HatetheSwamp     January 27, 2023 12:38 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [86 views]


Ron DeSantis backs woman of color for RNC Chair
Politics by HatetheSwamp     January 27, 2023 7:40 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [24 views]


What do you think of the Republicansí latest proposals?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     January 26, 2023 10:27 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (17 comments) [113 views]


What's the deal with unreturned classified documents?
Government by Curt_Anderson     January 12, 2023 12:01 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (28 comments) [433 views]


DeSantis defends rejection of African American studies class
Education by HatetheSwamp     January 24, 2023 5:04 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (12 comments) [139 views]


DeSantis wins AGAIN: College Board to revise AP African American studies class rejected by DeSantis
Education by HatetheSwamp     January 25, 2023 12:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [24 views]


Hey, isle: Professor argues math education is WHITE and cisheteropatriarchal space, 'limits' queer and students of color
Gay & Lesbian by HatetheSwamp     January 26, 2023 3:22 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [22 views]


W. Edward Deming would have known how to fix the broken the classified documents system.
Government by Curt_Anderson     January 25, 2023 1:03 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [181 views]


Ex-FBI Official Involved in Trump-Russia Probe Indicted for Working on Behalf of Sanctioned Russian Oligarch
Crime by Curt_Anderson     January 23, 2023 12:14 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [38 views]


Crime selectors, pages, etc.