Okay, assuming Hunter Biden abandoned his laptop in a computer repair store in Delaware last year while in a drug fueled haze.
A computer store will eventually resell an abandoned laptop but there are regulations surrounding that. Where’s the paper trail? If not, it’s suspect. Before they resell, guess what they do? They wipe the hard drive and rewrite over it. Then install software. If they don’t, they face liability from compromising the prior owner’s information, maybe even criminal charges. What happens when a used computer doesn’t sell? The store eventually sells it online or scraps it for parts. The used computer industry runs on extremely small margins. Product that doesn’t move gets junked. Come on, use some reason. This is fairly common knowledge of how things work.
Further, Burisma was years ago. There has already been a full FBI investigation where no wrong doing on the part of Joe Biden was found. So even if Hunter committed some international white collar crime, there is no evidence that it touched the high offices in any way so you cannot reasonably claim it makes him (Sr) unfit for office. We don’t fire people for crimes their relatives may or may not have been involved with. Especially when a full investigation fails to lead to charges being filed or an indictment.
About this new evidence after a full investigation, how do you explain this reasonably? You have to reasonably explain how the laptop magically showed up intact, with unseen evidence, last year when the FBI subpoenaed it during their investigation years prior. How do you explain that?
How do you explain China’s supposed involvement other than racism, bias and prejudice? I might have business dealings with Sweden and other business dealings with Mongolia. It doesn’t follow that Sweden knows about or has anything to do with my business interests in Mongolia. Or vice versa. How is there a real, reasonable, logical connection between them? Where’s the proof? Otherwise, I’d be suspicious of any evidence supposedly coming from or involving China as being legitimate. I will require independent verification, not conspiracy ramblings from a senile old man grasping for relevance and selling off whatever integrity he ever had for the dubious honor of playing out a Godfather fantasy of being Consigliere to Big Don.
It’s cheap and bad form to use his addiction against him in this manner. By all reports, he’s been sober prior to May of last year at the least. There’s no proof that his addiction led him to be negligent with security issues, or that he was using when he supposedly abandoned his laptop.
Honestly, the whole thing is just sketch. Way too squirrelly. It strains the bounds of credibility. You have to abandon all common sense to believe it.
