How Derek Hines Fooled Ken Dilanian into Making False Claims about the Hunter Biden Laptop

When I first read this passage in mid-January, it led me to suspect prosecutors in the Hunter Biden case were hiding real problems with the provenance of their digital data.

In August 2019, IRS and FBI investigators obtained a search warrant for tax violations for the defendant’s Apple iCloud account. 2 In response to that warrant, in September 2019, Apple produced backups of data from various of the defendant’s electronic devices that he had backed up to his iCloud account. 3 Investigators also later came into possession of the defendant’s Apple MacBook Pro, which he had left at a computer store. A search warrant was also obtained for his laptop and the results of the search were largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple. 4 Law enforcement also later obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s electronic evidence for evidence of federal firearms violations and to seize such data. 5

2 District of Delaware Case No. 19-234M and a follow up search warrant, District of Delaware Case Number 20-165M.

3 The electronic evidence referenced in this section was produced to the defendant in discovery in advance of the deadline to file motions.

4 District of Delaware Case No. 19-309M.

5 District of Delaware Case No. 23-507M.

Not so Ken Dilanian.

He read the same passage over five weeks and abundant new disclosures later, and claimed that rather than raise questions, it instead amounted to confirmation that prosecutors had authenticated material from the laptop.

Material from the laptop became evidence in the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden, which ultimately resulted in a pair of indictments accusing him of tax and gun crimes. He has pleaded not guilty. A recent court filing by the lead prosecutor in the case, special counsel David Weiss, says investigators authenticated the laptop material — and the fact that a computer had been left in a store.

He also claimed that this laptop evidence could have resulted in a gun indictment, when — as I confirmed as I was trying to chase down my suspicions — prosecutors didn’t get a warrant to search the laptop for gun crimes until after the gun indictment. If they used the laptop to get that gun crime indictment, they probably conducted an unlawful search.

Because people are quoting Dilanian’s claims as if they accurately report what we know about the laptop, I’d like to trace all the reasons why Dilanian should never have made either claim.

Let’s start with the reasons that passage raised suspicions in the first place.

I was suspicious partly because of the way Derek Hines used a showy claim about cocaine residue to distract from the issue he was litigating — whether prosecutors only decided to charge gun crimes in response to GOP pressure. Worse still, Hines hid the most important detail about that cocaine residue discovery, the date a lab tested for it, which would reveal whether that showy claim instead hurt his argument. In NBC’s case, three reporters suggested the late discovery of cocaine residue showed that prosecutors had obtained new evidence that led to indictment (though to NBC’s credit, they at least didn’t make the coke-in-gun their headline). Subsequent filings have revealed that the lab test was October 2023, after the indictment, and so proof instead that prosecutors didn’t seek evidence until after they charged. The showy residue claim actually supports Hunter’s side of this argument, not Weiss’: it suggests prosecutors never took basic investigative steps to support gun charges until Jim Jordan demanded it.

I was also suspicious because Hines had engaged in so much obvious prevarication in the same filing. He played with the timeline to suggest that evidence available two years before the indictment — Hunter’s book — was newly obtained. He selectively cited documentation about what led up to the plea deal: ignoring proof that David Weiss was personally involved, on June 6, in crafting language that protected against further charges; offering no contest to Chris Clark’s claim that on June 19, Weiss’ First AUSA assured Clark there was no ongoing investigation. Hines lumped Hunter’s lie on a gun form in with far more serious straw purchases in order to claim there were aggravating circumstances that merited charging (a detail that still doesn’t address why Weiss reneged on the plea deal). Hines outright lied about how much David Weiss had ratcheted up the potential sentence with the new charges.

No one should have uncritically accepted the language in this passage, because so much of the filing was obviously deceptive.

I was suspicious, too, because Hines’ claim that evidence obtained from the laptop was “largely duplicative” admits that it was not entirely duplicative. His choice of language made it clear there were things on the laptop that were not in the iCloud.

And he did so in a paragraph that tried to obscure how the provenance of the laptop affects the provenance of his other evidence. Notably, the structure of the passage misrepresented the temporal progression — a temporal progression that anyone who had covered Gary Shapley’s testimony should know. The body of the paragraph suggested that investigators got a warrant for Apple and only then accessed the laptop. The body of the paragraph provided no hint about when prosecutors obtained a warrant to search already obtained materials for gun crimes. The footnotes tell a different story. Hines hid in footnote 2 a follow-up warrant for backups of individual devices with a docket number, dating to 2020, showing that that follow-up warrant post-dated FBI’s receipt of the laptop (again, which was already clear from Gary Shapley’s testimony), and therefore may be poisoned fruit of the laptop. More shockingly, Hines hid the 2023 date of the gun crimes warrant in footnote 5. Those footnotes are what led me to ask more questions and ultimately to liberate the warrants in question.

When Dilanian quoted that passage as if it were reliable, he omitted the existence of those footnotes, as well as the reference to the belated warrant for gun crimes that explained why the laptop couldn’t have “resulted” in the gun indictment without a likely Fourth Amendment violation.

“In August 2019, IRS and FBI investigators obtained a search warrant for tax violations for the defendant [Hunter Biden]’s Apple iCloud account,” [omitted footnote 2] the filing said. “In response to that warrant, in September 2019, Apple produced backups of data from various of the defendant’s electronic devices that he had backed up to his iCloud account. [omitted footnote 3] Investigators also later came into possession of the defendant’s Apple MacBook Pro, which he had left at a computer store. A search warrant was also obtained for his laptop and the results of the search were largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple.” [omitted footnote 4 and admission they did not originally get a warrant for gun crimes]

Even in January, that response filing should have led reporters to note that David Weiss didn’t even seek basic evidence needed to prove the gun case until after he charged it.

But much has happened since to raise further questions about the laptop, including:

  • January 17: I write Weiss’ spox asking, “Can you correct me on the date of that warrant, please?” because I thought there was no way it was really December 2023. He declined to further comment, which made me suspect maybe it was really December 2023.
  • January 22: I asked Judge Noreika to unseal the dockets. She did!
  • January 30: Those dockets confirmed Weiss did not seek a warrant to search Hunter’s Apple data for evidence of gun crimes until 81 days after the indictment; the warrant return also discloses that the FBI was still searching Hunter’s Apple data on January 16 when Hines first publicly disclosed it and claimed that the laptop was largely duplicative of what was in the iCloud.
  • January 30: Abbe Lowell announced he plans to file a motion to suppress.
  • January 30: Prosecutors had not provided material from the laptop with Bates stamp or in e-discovery format; they also had not provided expert reports on the laptop known (from Shapley’s testimony, among other places) to exist.
  • February 13: Almost 40 months after acknowledging that the FBI had never validated the laptop to check when files were added to it, they admitted that they still have no index of the laptop. They also claim they were seizing information relating to gun crimes under the plain view doctrine for four years.
  • February 13: The FBI understands the laptop so poorly that they presented a picture of sawdust from Keith Ablow that probably should have been treated as privileged and claimed it was a picture Hunter took of his own cocaine. (There’s likely another picture that Hines misattributed, too.)
  • February 20: The same day Hunter rejected Weiss’ demand for quick guilty pleas to felony charges, August 29, prosecutors told Abbe Lowell — still three months before they obtained a gun crime warrant for either Hunter’s iCloud or the laptop — they had “independent sources” for anything on the laptop.
  • February 20: By describing that key texts sent between Hallie and Hunter Biden in October 2018 were not found in the iCloud content, prosecutors were actually describing that they did not have “independent sources” for their most probative evidence (or of the picture of a picture of a table saw and sawdust they want to claim is cocaine).

Let me make this easy for NBC, because they seem to misunderstand this.

Over 1,500 days after receiving the laptop, the FBI has not done the things it would need to do to validate the laptop. They don’t have an index of what they have and they don’t know how all the embedded back-ups relate to one another. Without that, they cannot make representations that the laptop was not tampered with. Indeed, they’re making laughably false claims about what they have found uniquely on the laptop, a testament that they don’t have the most basic understanding about the laptop.

Additionally, Hines’ description of the source for the texts between Hallie and Hunter Biden makes it highly likely they came from a device backup that was protected by a password when the FBI got the laptop. Accessing that content without a follow-up warrant — which they did before they got the 2020 warrants that may rely on it — may be a Fourth Amendment violation under Riley. And particularly given that Hunter had just lost two phones in the days before such texts would have been sent, it raises real questions about both their provenance and the compilation of the laptop itself.

Since Derek Hines made dubious claims on January 16 that the laptop was “largely duplicative” of material found in Hunter Biden’s iCloud, we’ve since learned one reason he was so squirrelly when he made that claim: his most important evidence for the gun crime doesn’t appear to be duplicated in Hunter’s iCloud. And unless the FBI conducted an unlawful search of Hunter’s digital evidence — or unless they indicted based on what they had seen in Murdoch publications — they did not learn that until months after they charged the President’s son. And they didn’t learn that because four years after obtaining the laptop, the FBI has still never taken basic steps to understand what is on it.


After I reviewed the passage Dilanian quoted, I realized that it is even more misleading than I had previously understood. The full passage is below, with annotations. 

In August 2019, IRS and FBI investigators obtained a search warrant for tax violations for the defendant’s Apple iCloud account. 2 In response to that warrant, in September 2019, Apple produced backups of data from various of the defendant’s electronic devices that he had backed up to his iCloud account. [this obscures what happened: Apple sent the full content of Hunter’s iCloud account, including the backups, but DOJ obtained new warrants — possibly relying on the laptop — to obtain those backups in 2020] 3 Investigators also later came into possession [this “came into possession” will look comical after we see a motion to suppress, not least because by the time FBI obtained it, they had already told John Paul Mac Isaac’s father he may have had it illegally] of the defendant’s Apple MacBook Pro, which he had left at a computer store. [as I’ve shown, the only proof that Hunter left the laptop would be easily faked by anyone in possession of the laptop — and when they checked Hunter’s iCloud data, they should have realized there were too many devices associated with it for all to be legitimately his] A search warrant was also obtained for his laptop and the results of the search were largely [as subsequent filings made clear, Weiss’ most important evidence was not duplicated in Hunter’s iCloud] duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple. 4 Law enforcement also later [by “later,” Hines means, they didn’t get a warrant until 81 days after indicting and were still searching the digital data] obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s electronic evidence for evidence of federal firearms violations and to seize such data. 5

2 District of Delaware Case No. 19-234M [August 29, 2019: Original iCloud warrantwarrant return] and a follow up search warrant, District of Delaware Case Number 20-165M. [July 10, 2020 iCloud warrantwarrant return]

3 The electronic evidence referenced in this section was produced to the defendant in discovery in advance of the deadline to file motions.

4 District of Delaware Case No. 19-309M. [December 13, 2019: Original laptop warrantwarrant return]

5 District of Delaware Case No. 23-507M. [December 4, 2023: post-indictment warrantwarrant. return (less attachments) attachments AB]

The searches revealed incriminating evidence, including evidence of the defendant’s addiction to controlled substances and his possession of the firearm, such as:

– Prior to October 12, 2018 (the date of the gun purchase), the defendant took photos of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia on his phone. [as proof of this, Hines presented a single photo of someone weighing cocaine without proof Hunter took it (though he probably did)]

– Also prior to his gun purchase, the defendant routinely sent messages about purchasing drugs. [as shown in the table below, Hines provides three examples, one of which was conducted on an “unknown” phone, the most recent of which was in July 2018]

– On October 13, 2018, and October 14, 2018 (the day after and two days after he purchased the firearm), the defendant messaged his girlfriend about meeting a drug dealer and smoking crack. For example, on October 13, 2018, the defendant messaged her and stated, “. . . I’m now off MD Av behind blue rocks stadium waiting for a dealer named Mookie.” The next day, the defendant messaged her and stated, “I was sleeping on a car smoking crack on 4th street and Rodney.” [this is from content that Hines seems to concede only exists on the laptop and was sent during a period when Hunter was still replacing lost phones]

– On October 23, 2018 (the day his then-girlfriend discarded his firearm), the defendant messaged his girlfriend and asked, “Did you take that from me [girlfriend]?” Later that evening, after his interactions with law enforcement, he messaged her about the “[t]he fucking FBI” and asked her, “so what’s my fault here [girlfriend] that you speak of. Owning a gun that’s in a locked car hidden on another property? You say I invade your privacy. What more can I do than come back to you to try again. And you do this???? Who in their right mind would trust you would help me get sober.” In response, the girlfriend stated “I’m sorry, I just want you safe. That was not safe. And it was open unlocked and windows down and the kids search your car. You have lost your mind hunter. I’m sorry I handled it poorly today but you are in huge denial about yourself and about that reality that I just want you safe. You run away like a child and blame me for your shit . . .” [this is still content that may only be available on the laptop and therefore unreliable or inadmissible]

– After the firearm was taken from him and recovered by police, the defendant continued to send messages to various people about his use of drugs, including telling his girlfriend that he is an “addict” on November 8, 2018, and on November 21, 2018, telling Person 1, “. . . I’m a fucking better man than any man you know whether I’m smoking crack or not.” He also continued to send messages about purchasing drugs. He sent a message to his girlfriend on November 29, 2018, stating, in relevant part, “I DONT BLAME MY ADDICTION ON YOU . . .” and another message to Person 2 on December 18, 2018, acknowledging that he is “an addict.” On December 28, 2018, hemessaged Person 2 stating, “I’ll fuxking [sic] get sober when I want to get fucking sober.” [this content does exist in Hunter’s iCloud, but several things make it suspect: he was texting on at least one other device at the time — though that’s a device that appears to only be available on the laptop — and (as I describe here) this particular device may be one that has suspect provenance going back to 2016]

– During November and December 2018, the defendant took multiple photographs of videos apparent cocaine, crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. [Hines presented three photos to back this claim: a timer in a picture of a presumed sex worker, a picture Keith Ablow took of a picture of sawdust, and a picture that may have come from Hallie — to the extent that it represented drug use — could not be tied to Hunter as opposed to Hallie and was very dated in any case] These episodes of persistent drug usage, documented by the defendant, in the immediate time frame before, during, and after his possession of the gun were evidence that he lied during the background check and unlawfully possessed the gun in October 2018.

 

 

image_print
120 replies
  1. EW Moderation Team says:

    A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:

    — We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of 8 letters.

    — We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**

    — If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.

    Thank you.

    • Rayne says:

      A comment published at 9:48 a.m. has been removed; this removal has also taken replies with it. The comment triggered more than 20 comments, all of which were off topic and generated substantive moderation work.

      Please stay on topic in this thread. Thank you.

    • zscoreUSA says:

      The phrase “largely duplicative” seems like a ridiculous ploy. Since there is blatant, obvious interest in what is not duplicative.

      Some questions about what’s going on.

      1) Since the prosecutors got the warrant for backups of those 4 devices in 2020, why not also get a backup for the Mac Isaac laptop? Or the iPhone XS that was extracted to the laptop? Because those backup don’t exist or because there are problems with verification?

      2) Since the laptop connects to Apple ID on October 21, why are the October 13 & 14 messages on it? Are the prosecutors getting those messages from the main laptop itself or from the iPhone XS extracted content?

      3) Since the prosecutors seem to concede the October 13 & 14 messages exist only on the laptop, why is that? With all of other devices used, including the Ablow laptop which was first connected to Apple ID in September, why do no other iCloud backups have that conversation?

      I definitely need to spend some time learning about how the Apple devices backup and sync to iCloud. Like is it auto save and continuously backs up? Do devices need to be set to backup and the default is not to backup? When a device backs up or connects to iCloud does it sync and save earlier dated iMessages? In the extracted message files on Marco Polo, some messages are green and labeled text messages and most are blue and labeled iMessage, what causes the difference in labeling?

      Also, I’m pretty sure the date for the box photo is s 11/8/18, based on the text file from the iPhone XS on Marco Polo.

      • emptywheel says:

        On the box: yeah, I probably should go back and link through that. At this point, there’s no big need, unless there’s a reason to believe it helps elucidate the relationship bt the iPhone XS and the iPad, about which I have just as many questions.

        Re: why the iPhone XS content doesn’t show up: I expect we’ll learn more about that. But I don’t think there’s record of the iPhone XS linking into the iCloud, if at all, until much later.

        I actually think people are assuming TOO MUCH if content makes it to the iCloud. As I keep saying, if you got a device that had access to his iCloud, anything you sent on it would be collected as if he wrote it.

        • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

          Any device with your iCloud credentials. It doesn’t even have to be your device. They can make Kompromat out of thin air and sync it into iCloud. They can put it on a Mac and leave it with a blind repairman. For a state collector, this is like free money. It came from “your iCloud backup” and the FBI says it is yours, apparently. Why would somebody take the time, trouble, and expense to do that to Hunter Biden in 2018? Let’s ask Zelensky. There he sat on the other side as Trump pressed and wheedled him to prosecute Hunter. We had a whole impeachment about it.

          Given the fact-sets of Russia’s direct operations from Smirnov’s false evidence to whatever is going on with Bobulinsky, Hines needs to read the tea leaves shaking. That is his professional reputation coming apart. Hines is getting taken down by the Laptop. He tried to define it as evidence when Hunter Biden’s Laptop has the field of the anti-provenance of planted evidence. It’s a trickster that was meant to be a stigma, and so it will turn and attach to Weiss, Wise, Hines, The Handler, whoever Barr decides. Not to Hunter, though. He’ll be Slick Willy forever because of all this. That’s better than felonies. If he were a Republican he could run for President.

        • zscoreUSA says:

          If the devices sync automatically, how does that explain the texts from October 13 & 14 showing up on a device that first connects later?

        • zscoreUSA says:

          Also, that one chart from one of the IRS guys, Exhibit 300, lists messages as from “Computer iCloud Backup”. What computer (sounds like the Mac Isaac laptop backed up to iCloud)? An actual iCloud backup that could be obtained from the warrant or the extracted files “backed-up” from the XS onto the laptop?
          https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/T35-Exhibit-300-All-Relevant-Backup-Messages_Redacted.pdf

          It also cites:
          *Apple Icloud [sic] Backup 03
          *iPad Backup Filter Review
          *Apple iCloud Backup #11

        • emptywheel says:

          Thanks for pointing that out. Checking now. It makes it clear that Hines misstated what the backup 11 was. Dummy.

        • emptywheel says:

          I wish I could believe any of these people understood the devices they were treating. This says that they got Hunter 2018 WhatsApp texts off a phone he couldn’t have owned until 2019.

        • zscoreUSA says:

          They way they named those pieces of data, without consistency, does that speak to anything like investigators doing a portion of work that they don’t normally do? Or just normal stuff with people divying up work and they name files differently?

        • zscoreUSA says:

          For the box, I don’t know if it will be relevant the XS or iPad, maybe there’s metadata available.

          But it might be relevant to understanding other events including how he connects with Ablow. The argument over who owns the box with the pipe and the “rock” inside precedes a couple days before they go together to Ablow.

      • HikaakiH says:

        I’m not an Apple user but did see a video a couple of months back that talked about Apple privileging Apple phone to Apple phone messages over iMessage (which get marked blue) versus SMS/MMS messages typically involving a non-Apple/Android device (which get marked green).

        • zscoreUSA says:

          Makes sense, but there are chat conversations that are iMessage in blue, then switches to text and back to iMessage, same conversation with the same other person, which is my confusion.

        • ShallMustMay08 says:

          Mac user here and I can help general things but worry about length b/c users are unique.
          But here specifically when I msg/text from my iPhone with a non iPhone users I am blue and they are green. Always.
          My msg/text outbound can go green sometimes and I have found that happens when I am not using wifi and have to depend on data from cell carrier. Or even when I am using wifi at home once in a while I will go green but seldom.
          Same in reverse with a text/msg from an iPhone user if they are traveling or not using wifi, the inbound can be in green. Both iPhone users can actually end up green (SMS vs iMSG) if relying only on data/carriers.

          I believe the iPad text/msg is the same. Not sure, I last used in 2016.

        • ShallMustMay08 says:

          I have yet to get thru other comments yet but thought to add that I have intentionally turned off my iMSG function that would force a green box. For reasons … but easy to do.

        • HikaakiH says:

          I found an article that explains a bit of what is going on with the green/blue, SMS-MMS/iMessage divide:
          https:// abcnews.go.com /Technology/imessage-android-inside-battle-green-blue-texts/story?id=105688611

        • johno808 says:

          Those blue bubbles are worth billions to Apple. Social stigma? In my world, we either do not, or very reluctantly, talk to green.

      • Tech Support says:

        1. iCloud backup must be turned on. It is not enabled by default.

        2. On an iPhone, the following items are backed up by default:
        App data
        Apple Watch backups
        Device settings
        Home screen organization
        iMessage, SMS, and MMS messages
        Photos and videos
        Purchase history from Apple services
        Ringtones
        Visual Voicemail password
        Note: Photo backups must be enabled separately.

        3. iCloud backups trigger based on the following conditions:
        Your device is powered on,
        Your device is connected to the Internet via WiFi,
        Your device is connected to a power source,
        Your device has the screen locked (i.e. turned off)
        It has been at least 24 hours since the last successful backup occurred.

        That generally means once a day, but clearly specific conditions could make that less frequent. It would only be more frequent if you manually backed up, which a user could do at any time.

        iCloud backs up via “snapshots”. On an iPhone, that probably means that all the default data is probably backed up in it’s entirety every single time. OTOH, for backups of significant volumes of data (photos anywhere, file folders on a Mac), it very likely that the backup process looks for both new files in the target locations and compares Last Modified timestamps for existing files in order to conserve bandwidth and selectively back up the diffs since the last backup.

      • ShallMustMay08 says:

        -2001 iPod intro – worked with iTunes and native on Mac only
        -2003 iTunes – intro for Window users
        -2007 iPhone – intro with iTunes app
        -2009 iOS3 – and subsequent Operating System for iPhones now default encryption (back up via USB)
        -2011 iCloud

        Can you select what goes into iCloud? Yes. But an important distinction is users of Mac products and skill set vary. I consider Power Users as the earliest Mac adopters (artist and creative types), not the many that came onboard 2003 for music and then iPhone. I started in using in 1994 but am not a power user and what I can see is that HB is a longtime Mac user. From Gus’s report (p5#37) he states that HB had data on the laptop reaching back to a 2008 Apple user ID, with the earliest iPhone mentioned is iPhone5 (2012). That tells me HB came on board later and not a creative early adapter original power user (who really know their stuff). Most important is that HB very likely relied heavily on Apple migrations. Regular user certainly can choose to exclude data and/or devices entirely and people do, but Apple iCloud has the information if it was migrated and in fact exist.

        With iCloud on each upgrade/new device the files by default will be migrated from old to new. In an Apple Store with a “genius” because they want to default to migrating everything to be on the safe side. Migrating everything also increase memory usage encouraging buyers to the more expensive products. Cell phone store carriers – same thing. I have with iCloud migration lost a few apps and data with the former and no explanation. Mail order or purchase from brick and mortar and you’re walked thru setting up with online scripts which are easier for a user to pick and choose what to ignore and migrate some data later provided they keep the old device.

        Why the iPhoneX wasn’t in iCloud the whole time? My 4S phone still works and I chose to never migrate into iCloud. I upgraded to iPhone6 and later, more went to iCloud. My original iPhone 3G (2008) is backed up in iTunes on separate hard drives (but not my current laptop) and encrypted since 2009 . The iPad was my dad’s I wiped clean but never took a liking to when closing out his estate, used for web based mail, a few messages and never backed up at all. In other words, 2 of those 3 devices has zero data in iCloud for different reasons.

        The 13/14 Oct message synch could have been turned off but would have synched in full later when turned back on.

        You can log into Apple iCloud from a non apple device and that account could be a hacked account.

        Apple generally discourages multiple Apple ID’s because of major software updates, but I see as a workaround to purchase and start using a new device and new/added Apple user ID and password while hoping for recovery of data and one a regular longtime user would do. Keeping work accounts separate from personal makes sense as well. I can’t recall how many user ID’s he went thru but I remember from the initial July post here describing Gus’s work and the salacious Marco Polo (I have never looked at the latter) and thinking the droidhunter user was strange. While it uses the name hunter and the other accounts were initials and somewhat related in nature this one really was not. Odd too that Gus makes no mention of that user in his report that I can see.

        Gus makes a statement on in his report (pg 9 #48) “The complete photograph EXIF data, which can be provided, also includes the device which includes the photograph and when they were created (digitized).” He goes on to painstakingly report that HB had various id pics on his devices so I presume he can provide HB with the cocaine/sawdust pics or any others and submit as evidence for the prosecution or defense. I am not sure what I am missing there but if you have the EXIF from that laptop that you personally examined and you claim “which can be provided” then he should do so.

        Using the prosecutions own artful terms of “largely duplicative “and “independent sources “ for not being able to provide nor substantiate evidence is – well the “… recitation is woefully insufficient …”.

        • zscoreUSA says:

          Thanks, this is helpful

          For the October 13&14 messages to be on the laptop, would the data migration have to be from a different laptop or could it be from a phone or iPad?

          Would the EXIF data record which exact device including serial or just the model of the device (which would need more information to distinguish between 2 different iPhone XS’s for example)?

          Since you know a lot about Apples, have you ever seen the 17 digit serial numbers that Dimitrelos uses for all computers besides the Mac Isaac laptop which already had the normal 12 digit s/n in the public domain? The Apple Store I went to said they never heard of that, only 12 digits. The 17 digits looks to me like an s/n for the hard drive, so I don’t know if that can give information about those device models.

          I suspect Dimitrelos used the 17 digits instead of 12 to obscure what’s really going on with the laptop devices.

        • ShallMustMay08 says:

          S/N – current laptop is 10, iPhone is 12. Serial and model number are the only number I need to give for parts or support. The 17 digit may be hard drive s/n but even that I am skeptical b/c Apple is so proprietary and walled off. I presume that the information related to those devices that he listed is from the library (files) on the laptop. I can’t speak for others but generally I compare it to a DOS file but OSX on UNIX. The libraries manage apps with music and photos, find my phone, etc. Lots of stuff and he wasn’t doing anything special there – just puffing.

          My iPhone camera shows only the model when I ask. Gus doesn’t show the Ablow sawdust pic so I assume it was not on the laptop he examined. Or maybe it was there and he saw it but decided it was too stupid to attach his name to. His claim up front is that if asked he will if provide all EXIF from his examination. I’ll have to go back and read it but I thought he was selective in giving some but not all. Good question though and I think EXIF gets stripped of data when moved around but I presume again Apple knows.

          I will f/u tmw on the Oct 13/14 question as it further hardens my belief that which Marcy points out from Hine’s independent source is likely for alternative facts. Your question made me reexamine my iPad msg use and why there is almost no way Apple can’t provide it if they have it. I bet they don’t. And likely HB and team knows that.

        • ShallMustMay08 says:

          iPads are ubiquitous with kids, TV, countertop for recipes, FaceTime, calls, or messaging each other like intercoms of past. If a user signs in on a device with their own account then what they do, Apple will log to them. I have received text from iPads to my iPhone which show (when not turned off) up in blue, but I would have no clue what device was used if I wasn’t standing there with them.
          Oct 13/14: It could be any device using iCloud. I can’t recall now where that info came from but I don’t think Gus. Migration -I call that when data carried over from old to new device at upgrade/replace. Integration -I call other devices talking to each other via user specific software selections. Ex: an iPhone users sends an updated photo as their contact photo and I am offered to update/integrate that photo into my contacts. Other users may have updated their personal photo but haven’t selected to share it from their end. Neither of us share Apple ID’s or devices. How he used I can’t tell but if it was his account signed in on any device it would be logged. If his account was hacked (looks like it) that’s different. And too if iMSG was turned off (it would be green). If a setting is changed by mistake or unintentionally (or had OS update) rare do folks stop usage. If the device works – figure it out later and then things synch via iCloud.
          My iPad – last used 2016 using cell data and never with iCloud. So if I use with iCloud today those messages would appear on my phone and integrate right into my current messages on my iPhone -IF- the sender’s phone number is stored in my iCloud contact. If there is no contact info I would still get the text (as green or blue) with no name, but the phone number if not somehow hidden on sender’s side. Which is why I had to stop and think further: I don’t use b/c I didn’t like but out of concern for another I would delete their text and contact data before connecting which I hope would suffice. Why? They exist in my iCloud contacts with multiple numbers for years and live/work internationally in tech privacy/security. Which reinforces my belief all the devices for HB Apple has the data and has turned over thus from elsewhere (unknown) is suspect.
          You need to be tech/apple proficient (not just power user) to cover your tracks with them and I can’t see it here. I assume HB in a dark place there and doubt it ever occurred to him to be that sophisticated. He used other phones/numbers and does not appear to go to great lengths to hide. The person I mention has sophisticated phone knowledge in addition to 30yrs in profession so there is a chance they covered themselves. But I’d have to jump through hoops and if the numbers were not burners or masked as my iCloud contact data would associate.

      • Rayne says:

        ATTN: zscoreUSA and ShallMustMay08:

        There are two comments in Spam, one from each of you, and I don’t know if they are legit or need to be binned.

        zscoreUSA: your comment appears to have been intended for the Happy Delaware Laptop Day, for Those Who Celebrate post on 2024/02/23 at 10:38 am

        ShallMustMay08: your comment was attempted at 2:09 pm today 2024/02/29 at 2:09 pm under zscoreUSA’s comment above.

        Something in the comment text may have triggered the Spam algorithm; both are related in some way to Apple products and Hunter Biden. Let me know by reply here if I can bin these or if I should release to publish. Thanks.

        • bmaz says:

          Huh, being the sole moderator of a site is a lot to deal with, isn’t it? You have gotten what you engineered.

        • Rayne says:

          There have *always* been a minimum of two persons with moderation powers.

          You’ve also gotten what you engineered.

        • ShallMustMay08 says:

          Rayne, I did send reply to zscore to back ground apple usages. It disappeared on my end as I hit post and it did not show up so I presumed something triggered it. I did have a phrase highlighted in my draft that did not come over as I pasted and thought that may do it. Otherwise not sure what language would.
          Thanks.

          [Moderator’s note: no problem, I will free it to publish. No idea what the trigger was. *shrug* I will delete these follow-up questions shortly. /~Rayne]

        • zscoreUSA says:

          I vaguely remember typing out a comment that I didn’t see so, yes it was legit, I don’t remember what it was. I thought maybe I had accidentally closed the browser before submitting, and didn’t get a chance to retype.

          [Moderator’s note: I’ve released it to publish, let me know if it needs to be removed. /~Rayne]

  2. Rayne says:

    Ugh. I can’t with your analogy. Obvious problem with your use of I Am Legend because it’s an adaptation of the novel of the same fucking name. It was NOT a remake of Omega Man or The Last Man on Earth, both of which were also based on the same novel.

    Abraham-Isaac mythos would fucking of course be common to ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS.

    I can’t with the rest of this, I don’t have time. If you’re trying to make a point, do a better job.

    • Marc in Denver says:

      Rayne,
      Don’t want to quibble (okay, maybe I do), but re: Abrahamic Religions, one of the (maybe, THE) differences in the versions (at least the Jewish and Islamic versions) is which son was commanded to be sacrificed (Isaac versus Ishmael), and the promises from the Deity flowing therefrom. And the History that those versions of the promises has gifted us today.

    • Error Prone says:

      Taking your critique with grace and a will toward betterment, nonetheless, I believe on the Heston and Smith films, both were being based on the same novel. Wikipedia agrees with me, for what that’s worth – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Omega_Man

      Grace and a will toward betterment befits us all. We strive, often missing the mark. But we persevere.

      • Error Prone says:

        Rayne – I misread, and apologize. You mentioned all three films based roughly on the same book, and I agree the last, under the novel’s name, is the closest. The other two took more liberties.

        I mainly looked at the “largely duplicative” wording in the context of different art having some parallels, but clearly unique and not duplicative. Then, the Bushes each with an Iraq war, and overlapping advisors, but different men.

        And court papers – also an art form. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.68.0.pdf
        That footnote 8 did not need to be split between two pages, but look at the text sliding between, and how contract law would have the unambiguous pair of settlement docs read together; but then negotiation, “in good faith,” over a contract modification failed to modify; the original standing unchanged – but not said that way.

        An art form.

    • OmegaMan says:

      Rayne- my friend almost worked on I Am Legend and the first script he told me about had a much better ending- everyone but Will Smith has accepted that humanity has mutated and moved on and he is seen as a serial killer as he is the last “human”. It’s a dark ending and would have made a better movie IMH but I understand your issue with the analogy

  3. BobBobCon says:

    Is there evidence Dilanian has actually read the source material? It’s possible he’s like the college kid who copy/pastes a Philo 101 paper on Aristotle and then just rephrased the argument surrounding the quotes in order to dodge getting caught.

    A lot of the conservative pundit pieces about “Russiagate” are pretty obviously cases of hacks doing sloppy rewrites of what was packaged up for them by a source. The mistakes they make tend to be different from writers who are wrong in original ways.

    • Yankee in TX says:

      Rather like Trump’s attorneys, I think. They are always searching for good quotes from cases and ignoring the holding of the cases

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      A lot of reporting seems to copy the framing of whomever put it out first, or which best suits the common editorial policies of the different media. One example is the commonality of the lamestream media’s errors, in reports about the amounts Trump owes on his two big civil damages cases.

  4. WhisperRD says:

    Charlie Sheen is not “largely duplicative” of Martin Sheen.

    Dad is a much better actor and has been associated with much better work. Dad gave us Apocalypse Now and The West Wing. Son gave us Two and a Half Men.

    I also don’t know what the point here is supposed to be. “Get real” isn’t giving enough of a clue. Are you disagreeing with somebody’s usage of “duplicative”? Are you siding with Marcy or the FBI?

    I guess my complaint is duplicative of Rayne’s.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      I think Error Prone was pointing out how ridiculous the use of the word ‘duplicative’ was by Hines and Dilanian, et al. A bit prolix, but the point was made even if it felt like breaking into a peanut with a sledgehammer.

    • 0Alexander Platt0 says:

      I think the point is that as in these comparisons, the term ‘largely duplicative’ is not mutually exclusive with ‘also very very different from’.

    • Error Prone says:

      WhisperRD – Charlie gives us Platoon, which some view as critically as sound as Apocalypse and Full Metal Jacket, as war films each touching Vietnam.

      Martin Sheen – leaving out Badlands omits a major Terrence Malick work, one of Sheen’s earlier works, based on the Charles Starkweather cross-country crime spree.

  5. Bill B(Not Barr) says:

    Stretching Elasticity.

    Speaking for myself, I think Error Prone agrees that “largely duplicative” does not imply a near copy. I would treat most of the above comparisons as not even close cousins, maybe some echos.

    At the very least, the John and Luke comparison fails because (according to my sources when I had a bible study class) Luke was first, well before John.

    • emptywheel says:

      He’s not the defendant there. The IRS is. He’s suing them for leaks of his tax data. This repeats a past move from the IRS, attempting to get rid of parts of the complaint tied to the IRS agents’ lawyers and also tied to a claim the IRS didn’t do enough to protect his data.

  6. N.E. Brigand says:

    Question about this bulleted point above:

    “February 20: The same day Hunter rejected Weiss’ demand for quick guilty pleas to felony charges, August 29, prosecutors told Abbe Lowell — still three months before they obtained a gun crime warrant for either Hunter’s iCloud or the laptop — to have “independent sources” for anything on the laptop.”

    I’m not following “prosecutors told Abbe Lowell … to have ‘independent sources’ for anything on the laptop.”

    That reads as if prosecutors are directing Lowell to go find some sources. Is that what is meant there?

    Or should it perhaps read: “prosecutors claimed to Abbe Lowell … to have”? Or maybe “prosecutors told Abbe Lowell … they have”?

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, I see the problem. I blame the post-op drugs! I think I fixed it.

      My guess is the conversation went something like this:

      Weiss: Go to jail or we’ll charge you!
      Lowell: You can’t possibly think you can use the laptop at trial!
      Wise (having never reviewed the data): We’ve got independent sources for everything!

      He was dick wagging from a position of relative ignorance and they’ve been trying to stave off this blowing up in their face since.

        • emptywheel says:

          That’s it precisely. They tell me they got all the screws and plates. I have to trust them for the next two weeks until the bandages come off.

        • John Paul Jones says:

          Did you consider having a pal bring in one of those detectors people to use to find coins on the beach and run it over the foot?

          Best wishes for a speedy recovery. I’ve had minor ankle injuries in the past and even those small hits can be excruciating while they last and one must, perforce, hobble painfully from room to room, trying to accomplish the most ordinary tasks.

        • emptywheel says:

          It’s not quite 6 months since I broke the foot and I’m now the proud owner of 4 different walking boots.

        • Sussex Trafalgar says:

          Hope you asked for all the hardware removed by the surgeon.

          And if you see lots of scratches, scrapes and chisel marks on the screw heads and plates, then you’ll know how much new bone grew over the said hardware.

        • emptywheel says:

          I didn’t get it. Pretty sure the answer was, a lot. Also there’s only one screwdriver for such things in the area, which is why it didn’t happen two weeks ago. (We’re a wee country!) But they claim they got it all.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        My best wishes for your recovery. Make sure you have enough popcorn to enjoy while watching Weiss squirm.

        I also wonder how this will be used during today’s HB interview with the Comer Clown Committee. We could start a pool on what gets released out of the majority’s side before Lowell corrects the record.

        I also see that the Comer Clown Committee wants to go over the Hur ‘report’ on 07 MAR, which is not coincidental because that is also the day of Biden’s SOTU speech. Will it be public or behind closed doors?

        • Shadowalker says:

          Anything involving classified info would require a closed non-public hearing. If they hold another in public is debatable and largely depend on how the statute(s) he was appointed under is/are written.

  7. tje.esq@23 says:

    Thanks, Marcy. So elucidating for readers by how you structured this!

    One question, though — and not at all to imply that you aren’t incredibly thorough, so asking really more to confirm my understanding of things — but, next to footnote 3 above, about discovery being provided by the deadline, would it have been correct to annotate with something like…?
    -“produced, but not in a standard manner with Bates stamp, etc., making some production useless for defense”
    and/or
    -“before the deadline, but then well after that deadline, and only after twice being asked by defense, did prosecutors provide the location where a few suspicious texts could be found — only then making the information useful/usable…and then prosecutors later claimed, hiding the fact USEABLE discovery was provided only after the deadline, that Biden’s defense team was barred from calling ‘foul’ because their suppression motion was untimely (made too late).” … to hide that prosecutors actually prevented the defense from being able to file the motion on time…

    I have no idea if I am simply mixing up all my info, so am certainly fine to be shown to be wrong about my personal irritation with footnote 3. I’m really curious if my 2nd assertion is correct, or if I’m mixing things up … besides being unable to draft clear hypothetical annotations!

    • emptywheel says:

      No. That’s right. Just as important though, is I think Abbe Lowell was making them go on the record to have relied on stuff that is a 4A violation, so when he nails them for it, it’ll be something sanctionable.

      • tje.esq@23 says:

        thx.

        one additional, Q: Have you seen “plain view” doctrine cited in other electronic data cases you’ve covered? I noted your reference to Riley v. California (2014) above, which requires police have a warrant before searching the contents of electronic data stored on personal cell phones*, but wondered how commonly courts allow ‘plain view’ exceptions to electronic data…I only know of two circuit cases (both prohibiting police searches) discussing the matter, and they date back before some of the more modern applications of the plain view doctrine (providing more permission to cops, generally).

        I find this such a stretch of the doctine, as police must have specific probable cause before searching anything — plain view allows only for SEIZURE of items in ‘plain view’ — and courts have at least been clear that one cannot do a preliminary search LOOKING for the probable cause.

        You dig through more modern electronic data cases than anyone I know, so if the plain view doctrine is commonly used in this context, I think you’d have come across it.

        Easy primer for other readers, fyi:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine

        And, BTW — I think, regardless, peering through the open field in ‘plain view’ of FBI eyes for 1400 days (four years) before seeking permission to search for specific content, coupled with seeking such permission 81 days after you indicted the crime, is the beautiful ammo that you, Marcy, have harvested, that should be sufficient for Lowell to challenge the reasonableness of the government’s plain view claim.

        GOOD GOING, Girl! Great eyes, great inferences, and hopefully no “reading” headaches to accompany!

        *not to presume courts would see a cell phone and laptop as ‘largely duplicative,’ of course, but not the gist of my Q

        • emptywheel says:

          Right: No chance in hell they’d get to argue plain view permitted that. You get a new warrant once you find something plain view.

          I think if and when they get asked what they had seen when they indicted, things will get squirmier still, unless they just admit they were reading the NY Post and start dealing with the taint.

          Honestly, I keep waiting for people to think through how scandalous the treatment of Hunter is here, bc the fact that it happened to Joe Biden’s kid is insane. They literally watched as his digital life was compromised and did nothing.

        • Harry Eagar says:

          So, what are they thinking? If even a tenth of the mischief you and Lowell have exposed is accepted by a judge, the case is doomed.

          I get that dropping charges now is 1) embarrassing; and 2) political nitroglycerine, but waiting only makes it worse. Or does it?

        • tje.esq@23 says:

          Frustration mutual! I think Lowell wrote a letter /made a DOJ referral for 1033 violations(?).

          It’s hard not to attribute some of this to groupthink — not challenging assumptions. Perhaps with the Weiss team expansion there will be fresh eyes, fresh questions?

          NASA lost two space shuttle crews while the stakes were super high, and the world was watching. It’s not that there weren’t dissenters who raised objections, there were. It was the management groupthink that just couldn’t “hear.” And the dissenters didn’t have anyone amplifying their voice, so they couldn’t shout louder to be heard.

          Your shouting from the rooftops (from inside the wheel well?) on this blog, through your dogged research and keen analysis, helps empower the dissenters. And, hopefully, the commentariot members reach out to those within our orbit to help amplify your voice.

          Or, perhaps, I need to remove the rose-colored tint from my glasses.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          An ex-president screams to his fans that he is being “persecuted” on their behalf, like “the Blacks” or Jesus, depending on his audience.

          The current president’s son is being prosecuted based on “evidence” procured by means that arguably violate the constitution. This, in fact, *could* happen to you. There are reasons beyond Hunter Biden not to let this particular form of prosecutorial dickishness stand.

  8. Shadowalker says:

    One question that’s beginning to bug me. When did they get the idea that Hunter was using drugs while in possession of a firearm? Couldn’t they gather enough evidence for a probable cause search warrant at the time the offense was committed? When someone posts images online of evidence of a crime, they immediately get a search warrant, and it’s that evidence collected they use in the trial.

    Oh, the image of crack and pipe suffer the same problem as the sawdust. Both require lab analysis of the actual substance. Images alone of an object are not enough for positive ID.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      Officially that’s ‘old news’ in the RWNM universe, but the IRS ought to be done by now.

      However, courtesy of Leticia James and E. Jean Carroll the financials will be revealed anyhow. I find it telling that Defendant-1 had to beg for leave to get a loan since he couldn’t even cover 25% of the judgements.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      By design, as a sarcastic comment on the prosecution’s abuse of the concept of duplicative, to paper over flaws in their evidence, process, and chain of custody.

      • ExRacerX says:

        I’m a great fan of exaggeration to the point of absurdity for comedic effect, EoH. However, the lack of a snark tag can render a poster’s intent unclear.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I’m all in favor of snark tags, but the sarcasm in that comment seemed readily apparent. “Come on – get real.”

  9. Hipster_CHANGE-REQD says:

    Dr. Wheeler, thanks so much for your great work. Have you ever read Vincent Bugliosi’s “Outrage”? Reading your comments on Dilanian and others in the media over the last few months I’m often reminded of Mr. Bugliosi’s shredding of the media and its (incompetent) coverage of the O.J. Simpson case.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters **AS NOTED IN THE FIRST COMMENT OF THIS THREAD.** We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Bugliosi had a complicated relationship with “the media.” When he was right, he was righteous. But when he was wrong he rarely self-corrected. I recommend the book Chaos, about the Manson case(s), especially if you read it with a grain of salt in regard to the conspiracy theories.

  10. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Will check back later to catch up on this and see whether Rayne has a “McConnell Tosses in the Towel” post. Feels like the earth shifting slightly on its axis. Finally.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      McConnell embodies many of the things wrong with the current iteration of the GOP but at least he wasn’t a full-throated MAGA type (he just had zero scruples to use them to obstruct the Ds on all topics). I really do not know who the GOP could replace him with with any hope of getting bipartisanship on any issue.

      • Just Some Guy says:

        “…at least he wasn’t a full-throated MAGA type…”

        Guess you missed the NYT story this week about negotiations between McConnell and the Trump campaign for the former to endorse the latter.

        The problem with saying “at least they’re not…” with Republicans is that there is always incontrovertible proof that they are, indeed, whatever one is claiming that they are not. Even and especially Mitch.

    • Matt___B says:

      Assuming D’s still have narrow control of Senate after the 2024 election, who would become the new minority leader? Josh Hawley? Ted Cruz? Or…is the Senate too stodgy of an institution to go full obstructionist like the House has?

      • Tech Support says:

        Stodginess aside, the “insurgent wing” of the Senate GOP is imo not sufficiently populated or unified to overthrow the pecking order. We won’t know the dance card until after the election but I’d assume the current short list is Thune/Barrasso. Mike Lee is probably your leading candidate for the extremists.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          Not that the Ds are allowed any input to the decision, but Lee is a charter member of the insurrectionist cabal. IIRC, when Tuberville took the call it was on Lee’s phone. Between that and his warped view of the US Constitution (Charlie Pierce calls him the Konstitushanal Skolar more or less) he will not be an improvement toward getting things done.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The news coverage of this announcement has not been stellar, other than helping to resurrect Chuck Todd for the election season. /s

      The issue isn’t what happens to Republican leadership in the Senate after the election. The issue is what happens to it now. The announcement makes Mitch a lame duck. Or has he decided that’s what he is anyway?

      • Just Some Guy says:

        Can’t be a coincidence that Mitch’s announcement came the same week that the NYT reported he was negotiating an endorsement with the Trump campaign.

  11. Brad Cole says:

    Re: the media outrage machine.
    The WaPo is truly amazing.They have relentlessly, for months, above the fold and below, promoted the Russian disinfo op that’s culminated this morning in Hunter Biden testifying before Congress.And there’s no, zero, niente, nada, coverage in the page I get. Bravo.Democracy does die in darkness.

  12. OmegaMan says:

    Are we at the stage where we can declare Weiss dumber than Durham? And who is more dangerous? And is there any chance someone at DOJ could declare either so incompetent that we will never see them in a position of power for our government again? It is scary how much power these politically motivated US Attys have and there is little oversight. Also is anyone going to ever go back through the Kraken’s prosecutions and try to overturn their convictions based on the fact that she was batshit crazy? Thank you Marcy and all for your always enlightening posts

    • Matt___B says:

      It’s getting hilarious – he’s trying to negotiate! They offered $100 million, and not a penny more. Threw in a “guarantee” that they will keep the independent monitor and co-operate with her. Also argued that finding a bond-issuer will ultimately be more expensive than just paying the sum asked for. There’s just no end in attempting to game the system when you can afford bad lawyers to make the arguments for you!

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Trump and other defendants have a stay, pending the outcome of any appeal, regarding ancillary issues. Not a big deal or likely to be in place for long.

        What is a big deal is that there’s no stay on the money judgment or the monitor’s hiring of a director for accounting and financial compliance for the Trump business defendants.

        I assume that if Trump ponies up a full bond, he’ll get a stay on the money judgment. But unlike the Supremes, the Appellate Division is likely to decide an appeal fairly quickly, and the Court of Appeal may not accept an appeal from its decision.

  13. SteveBev says:

    Re SCOTUS immunity case

    Steve Vladek on CNN thinks it is odd the Court took as long as it did to get “only this” ie to come to this framing of the J6 immunity question, which suggests there was a real debate in the Court over the last two weeks about some effort to reach some more definitive conclusion, perhaps a summary decision to affirm the DC Cir conclusion. And what that suggests is that there are a couple of justices in the middle eg Kavanaugh or Coney Barrett who might be very unsympathetic to Trump claims on the merits but also want the Court to give it due consideration which is why we have reached this position.

  14. Zinsky123 says:

    So sorry to hear about your foot, Ms. Wheeler! I hope you heal quickly! Drink a lot of milk! As someone who used to be involved in forensic accounting and information systems audits, I knew years ago that the provenance of the data on the so-called “Hunter Biden laptops”, actually several external hard drives it seems, would be a problem for any serious prosecution of Biden based on the data or pictures contained therein. Not to mention John Paul Mac Isaac violated Delaware escheat laws in illegally appropriating abandoned property. I think Hunter may end up getting off scot-free!

Comments are closed.