Hunter's Fucking Laptop

 Breaking this out from the Twitter Files entry.

You probably already know Hunter's laptop had been dropped for repair due to liquid ingress in April, 2019.  However, because the computer guy was blind (not sure how that works), he can't confirm whether it was Hunter himself who brought it in.  When the shop reached out to advise the work had been completed, every call went unanswered.  Most repair businesses have a policy that any equipment that remained unclaimed after a specified period of time becomes the property of said business.  This business must have had a fairly short window, because the owner, a MAGA Republican, reached out to the FBI in July of that year to advise them of what he had. The FBI collected the drive in December of 2019.  Mac Isaac, the computer guy, also made copies of the drive "just in case".  

It was about that time that Rudy Giuliani was headed to Ukraine on his mission to dig dirt on the Bidens.  This adventure was receiving a lot of attention and our MAGA computer guy thought the drive might be of value.   Computer guy connected with Rudy's attorney and sent him a copy some time during Summer, 2020.  Then, in October, the New York Post began publishing articles on the contents of the drive.  All straightforward, except the drive had gotten bigger.  

Earlier this year, the Washington Post obtained a copy of the NYP / Rudy drive.  They had two separate computer experts analyze the drive and published the findings in a March 30th article.  The short version was the drive was full of corrupt data and they were only able to authenticate ~15% of the emails as definitively originating with Hunter Biden.  But also discovered something quite remarkable.  From the WAPO article that I've linked at the bottom:

"Soon after that period of inactivity — and months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody — three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names “Desktop Documents,” “Biden Burisma” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents.”

Williams also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.

Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden."

In other words, someone had doctored the drive that that was used for the NYP article to include what one can only deduce is fabricated evidence of criminal wrongdoing.  Even our MAGA computer repair guy said, in an interview, there was a great deal more data on the drive than his original.  For those who may have dozed off, at some point after Max Isaac sent to the drive, but before the NYP article, the drive was modified in an attempt to portray the Bidens as criminals.  To close the WAPO portion, they published a story in April that echoed the March findings, along with the sentiment of "no, it really is a piece of shit and don't pay attention to it."

Some have challenged this information (because WAPO would make shit up?) by contrasting with a recent CBS story (link below) where they authenticated the drive's contents.  How could both be true?  Easy, CBS had a copy of the original drive, provided by the computer guy's attorney and not the doctored one.  They even note the existence of two versions in their story.  Of course, the doctored version is the one that's been circulating, although I think in tiny pieces, through right wing media.

Because MAGA is apparently a bunch of Karen's, they keep asking why none of the validated material has been released.  My response is "how long do you have?'  First, the FBI won't release a damned thing; period.  If it sees the light of day, it'll be part of discovery prior to a trial.  Speaking of criminal proceedings, what's a hard drive's value with no corroboration as evidence?  And is a computer guy handing the drive over considering a legal search and seizure?

Then there's the question of who really owns the data.  It's obviously legal for the repair shop to claim a piece of equipment, when a customer fails to retrieve it, but can they really claim ownership to the data on it to do with as they choose?  What if the contents of the drive included a lost Beatles album or offshore bank account numbers and passcodes, does the shop owner have the right to sell or use as his own?  From a strictly personal point of view, I'd like to think that answer to be no.  Anyway, the answer to that question, which I think is being asked in court, determines whether the drive can be used as evidence or if CBS can think about sharing. 

Also, does the data include attorney client material, intellectual property?  Would the shop owner now have a claim on an invention he didn't create?  But that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Publishing material that hints at criminal behavior, but never leads to a charge, would be monumentally stupid.  It would be a piece of cake to convince a jury that the Bidens' reputations have been materially damaged.  In a flash, the Bidens would own CBS, with money still being owed.  Obviously, it's a different story if the material is associated with a guilty verdict, but that's a huge reach.  Finally, keep in mind that DOJ rules prevent investigating a sitting President (which is why Trump fended off multiple actions while in office), so don't expect to see any activity from the FBI for two or potentially six years.  In summary, no legitimate entity is going to touch this thing, which means you should be very suspicious of those who do publish supposedly valid material from the drive.  

As a post script, there are a few other comments I'd like to add.  First, I agree that Hunter Biden was asked to be a part of Burisma and other endeavors because of who his father was and not for his qualifications.  Who wouldn't accept a cushy high paying role?  Also, everyone in my circle (and I of course) agrees that if either Hunter or Joe actually committed crimes, they should be tried and punished; period.  

WAPO Article

CBS Story

Twitter Files and Yes, Hunter's Laptop

 My intent was to avoid writing about the nothing burger from two nights ago, but the right wingers have all embraced it with such orgasmic delight that I feel I should.  Seriously, there were some sore right arms out there, yesterday morning.  The document release was done over 20 something tweets, which was annoying as fuck, especially since they seem to have been written by an 8 year old autistic child.  But someone figured out the format would blow up engagement numbers, which I'm sure it did.  Advertisers still won't touch the train wreck, though, for the same reasons they exited in the first place.  But I digress as usual.

What was actually said in the release:  In October, 2020, Twitter suppressed a New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop.  The action was initially justified based upon Twitter's TOS on hacked material, but the internal emails admitted that was a stretch.  Also, Twitter apparently suspended Kayleigh Fuckininey's account for two weeks.  It wasn't clear whether the two were related or if it was, I didn't care.  Also, the Biden campaign requested some defamatory posts be taken down.  It was specified that both the Trump and Biden campaigns had access and could / did make such requests.  Trump's requests weren't noted (and apparently won't be in the next cluster fuck, either).  

But this is apparently what the right wing looneys read:
Joe Biden had the Hunter laptop story buried and had incriminating evidence removed, which influenced the election.  Although, some rightly picked up that Twitter actually suppressed the NYP story.  

The right wingers were pissed that they lost (as usual) and began marching out all of the baseless accusations and claims of what's on Hunter's laptop back to the surface, which further worked the chimps into a lather.  Seriously, they were euphoric.

For clarification, some research in the internet archive uncovered the tweets the Biden campaign requested be remove were nudes of Hunter and tantamount to revenge porn, something quite illegal.  So, the right wingers are full of anger over not seeing Hunter Biden's dick.

And now, for the context:  Twitter burying the laptop story didn't violate anything; most certainly not the First Amendment.  No government forcing the act, so no foul.  If it influenced the outcome of the election, who cares?  It's not as though Fox News, OAN, and the others haven't done the exact same thing for the Republicans.  If anything, one would have greater expectations of truth from a "news" outlet.  

If you haven't already, right now, you should be asking yourself why you didn't hear about the NYP Hunter's Laptop story from another source.  The paper is a Murdoch property, so why didn't it show up on Fox News?  News agencies frequently report on one another's investigations, so why wasn't this bombshell everywhere?  Why hasn't there been follow up in the two intervening years?  One might conclude that the story really wasn't one.  

My research has shown that's the case.  Apparently, it was well known within the journalism community the NYP story was a hail mary at an October surprise, by the right, in an attempt to influence the election (my, how did that worm turn!), and was considered toxic.  

Others wouldn't touch it because a large portion of the hard drive's data is questionable or at the very least, unable to be verified to belong to Hunter Biden.  Of the 130k emails on the drive, less than 15% were able to be established as original.  That's to say they aren't authentic, just that they can't be 100% sure they are.  This comes from a Washington Post story in March, where they gave the hard drive to two forensic computer experts.  Here's a link to the article.

WaPo Article

When you read it (and I highly do), take note of the number of files written to the drive after Biden dropped it off at the repair shop, including three folders titled “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.  

But what about CBS stating the hard drive was confirmed to be Hunter's and the data was uncorrupted? CBS received a copy of the version in the FBI's possession.  You see, there are two versions of Hunter's hard drive.  From the CBS article:  

Some other versions of the laptop data circulated later appeared to have had data added after April 2019, a sign they could have been tampered with, according to reports in other media outlets, including The Washington Post. 

There was to be a second drop last night, but that didn't happen.  Elmo made a comment they're still filtering through the data (translation:  cherry picking material that seems more salacious), so it might be tonight.  The course to excellence continues at Twitter LOL.  

To wrap up, the Twitter Files was about the furthest thing you can get from a bombshell; more like a dud.  Hunter's laptop is a dead end because people fucked with it.  Bottom line, I don't know what Hunter was involved in and neither do you, because any evidence on the hard drive is suspect.  So long as the President wasn't party to it, I don't care.  If Hunter Biden committed crimes, he should be tried, convicted, and punished accordingly.  

First Amendment For Dummies

 There seems to be a lot of discussion around free speech, lately, with Elmo allowing spewers of hatred and disinformation back onto the cesspool that Twitter has become.  Almost every comment on the topic displays a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment.  Let's begin with the actual text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It actually seems pretty straightforward to me, but for some reason, many have the completely fucking wrong idea that Twitter must allow free speech.  News flash kids; as a private corporation, it doesn't have to allow jack.  

Let's say I owned a bar; as a business owner, I want a positive experience for my customers, so they'll return and maybe recommend my establishment to others.  What I don't want is to be seen as someone who endorses and gives a platform to that which most reasonable people find objectionable.  Therefore, if someone came in, spouting praise for Hitler, their ass would be tossed with malice.  That person has the freedom to espouse their love for Hitler all they want, but not in my private business.  I have the right to abridge free speech all day in my establishment, because I'm not the government.

It's the same situation for Twitter, in that the (previous) management was focused on providing a safe platform to exchange ideas, and cat pictures.  More users ultimately results in greater advertising revenue.  Right wing hate speech, meant to incite violence, and dangerous medical non-advice degrades that safe environment for users.  It also drives away advertisers who don't wish to be associated with such material.  News flash for the right wing looneys; most people find that shit objectionable.  

Yet, there are those who continue to clamor for all of the banned accounts to be restored, claiming their voices are being suppressed.  To that, I offer a hearty, "who gives a shit?"  Twitter can ban whomever they want, whenever they want, and remove people for saying things they don't like, because again, they aren't the government.  

Since I started writing this one, the whole Twitter file nonsense has broken.  As expected, it was a big fat pile of nothing.  Twitter suppressed some tweets, which were essentially revenge porn of Hunter; something that's quite illegal.  BOTH the Biden and Trump campaign had interactions with Twitter on these types of situations.  

I'll make one comment on the Hunter Biden laptop, which is one more than it deserves.  The data on that hard drive has been spread far and wide and is well known at this point.  If there were damning evidence present, it would have been broken by now, by more than the fringe right wing media.  

The Far Right - Completely Uninformed

 As regular readers know, I've had my encounters with the far right on shooting message boards.  These were mostly cult members, who refused to believe anything negative about the Orange Traitor.  As an example, I noted Cheeto Face's raging sociopathic narcissism, to which I was challenged, of course.  I posted links to articles from a wide range of sources (to prevent being accused of believing "commie garbage") and none of those cult members believed any of it.  Not shocking, I know.  The thing is there were a finite number of right wing looneys who did most of the screaming.  

Fast forward to today, with me more active on Twitter, and discovering more cultists.  There seems to be an unending supply of them on the site and they know absolutely nothing about reality.  Recently, I interacted with someone who was part of the "investigate Biden" crowd.  I'd commented about how odd I found it that not one Republican Congressperson took the least bit of interest in Jarod's $2 billion payment from the Saudis.  There were two folks who chimed in, calling my comment a lie.  Long story short, they were completely unaware of that payment until I posted proof.  

My favorite of the week, so far, is the guy who refused to believe Trump had been in legal trouble before, so I posted an official link to the outcome and settlement.  His response?  "That's your opinion."

I just remembered my true favorite for the week.  There was outrage amongst the looneys that the Orange Traitor was forced to turn over his tax returns, with numerous comments to the effect that "if our lord and savior had to turn his over, where's Biden's or Obama's?  They should be forced as well."  After I explained that Trump had to turn his over as part of an investigation, I posted links to the tax returns they demanded and informed them the only Presidential candidate, in over 50 years, who hasn't voluntarily provided their tax returns was Cheeto Face.  

These people have literally zero understanding of the world around them.  Fortunately, I've reached that point of zen where I won't waste time spoon feeding anymore...they just get blocked.

Physical Appearance and Lack of Differentiation

 Life here in RTP remains blissful, but I discovered a challenge to living in my neighborhood.  As I mentioned in Minority Report, most of my neighbors are Indian.  As I also mentioned, they've been kind, friendly, and welcoming, but I can't tell them apart!  Specifically, I'm referring to the women in the neighborhood where most of them look like they're out of central casting.  Every one of the Indian women on my street, between their 30's and 50's are 5'4", slenderish build, with long, straight, black hair, no makeup, and very subdued clothing.  What doesn't help matters is my distance vision is on the edge of needing correction (thanks laser surgery for lasting almost 20 years!) so making out fine facial features any further than 25 feet is all but impossible.  As I mentioned, they're all very friendly, but I never know whether I'm looking at my next door neighbor or someone from two blocks over.  I find this frustrating, because it prevents me from "placing" them and offering more than a "Hi".  

The fact of the matter is white women are easier to place because of the greater variations in body type, hair color / style, height, and mannerisms.  Facial features are easier to place at some distance because of heritage.  Women with Italian genetics look different than ones with Scandinavian or Slavic.  Makeup also plays a big role in differentiating.  That all means that white "familiar stranger" women tend to stick in the memory banks more easily.  

The men are much easier because of build, facial hair, the way they carry themselves, and a bit more varied heights.  

These are the things I spend my days pondering...damn, I need a life!

It's The Guns - Revisited

 Despite my best, good faith efforts to illustrate the relationship (or lack thereof) between gun violence and gun ownership, there are those who remain unconvinced, some of whom have been nasty, insulting, little pansies about it.  They continue to cry "it's the guns" that are causing the epidemic of firearm related homicides.  Obviously, you can't have firearm related homicides without firearms, but that's where the correlation ends.  

Consider a basic equation: 

GO+X*XX=GH

GO represents the percentage of households that own guns and has been declining steadily since the 70's.  It's probably increased slightly since the pandemic, based on how many new buyers have been purchasing guns.  For the purpose of this exercise, we'll peg it at 35%

GH is the number of gun related homicides

It's simple math that if GO remains constant (or within a margin of error), and GH changes dramatically, there must be a factor that impacts the outcome of the calculation.  

Some visuals may be helpful.  

This chart represents the total number of homicides by year, from 1985 through 2021.*

Things to note:

Upward trend, beginning in 2013, totals in line with early 2000's

Massive decrease over the course of the 1990's

These are raw numbers, not per capita.

The red line illustrates the downward trend in firearm ownership, per household.

Takeaway:  Our murder rate has definitely increased since 2014, but remains nowhere near what it was a few decades ago.  

This next chart illustrates number of firearm related deaths resulting from mass shootings.**  

This chart shows a clear upward trend on deaths from mass shootings, particularly in the past three years.  Of note is how the total remains less than 10% of all firearm related homicides.  

Finally, because everyone loves charts, this one illustrates number of mass homicide fatalities by year.***  One could argue the average is trending downward.    

In summary, any rational, intelligent individual would conclude guns are not to blame for the increase in firearm homicides.  Looking at the data, one could argue there really isn't an epidemic.  Gun violence is absolutely something we need to address as a society, but we won't make any progress while simpletons blame everything on one factor.  You're not helping!

*Source - FBI CDE Expanded Data, includes all homicides, not just firearm related.  However the vast majority are.  FBI changed their data availability last year to where you're no longer able to download large chunks of data, instead being forced to use their explorer, which offers zero granularity.  

** Source - Gun Violence Archive

***Source - Mother Jones Mass Homicide Database (their name is mass shooting database, but it isn't)

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE. 

 

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie..

Gun Culture and Banning Guns

 Based upon some of the questions and comments from readers of my previous entries on gun violence, I thought it may be of value to step back and examine the origins of America's gun culture and why that culture is so strong.  In addition, I'll throw out some gun owner's insight on our hobby. 

Gun Culture in the USA

In order to best understand why guns are so ingrained in American culture, I thinks helpful to understand why other countries don't have it.  Let's go back to the founding of this country for a quick look at the two sides that fought each other.  The bad guys lived under a monarchy and were professional soldiers for the largest empire on the planet, where the good guys, who kicked their asses, had a fledgling democratic government and were anything but professional soldiers.  This is the first glimpse of the everyman as a hero, fighting for his very freedom.  This underdog kept his musket by the front door, should he be called upon by his country.  Contrast this with the Red Coat, who upon returning home, exited his service and no longer needed his musket.  England had a standing army to repel invaders.  By then, Europe was mostly stable, relative to fighting between neighboring countries, apart from those War Wars, of course.  Fun fact:  English common law allowed carrying of guns, but only white members of the English church.  

Finally, I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of system of government on a country's views toward gun ownership.  Until WWI, every country in Europe was run by a monarch, mostly all from the same German family (hence the stability).  And monarchs aren't terribly fond of the general populous owning weapons that could be used to overthrow them.  The same can be said for dictators.  Therefore, Europeans have been accustomed to not having guns for centuries, so our gun culture frequently baffles them.  

Returning to America, once freedom had been won, it was time to explore the rest of our great land and tame the Wild West.  Those pioneers and explorers needed guns to hunt for food as well as defend themselves from predators.  They also carried for another reason that continues to echo today.  There's not much law enforcement present when there isn't a state, much less a town to elect a sheriff.  In other words, you were left to your own devices to defend yourself against those who may wish to do you harm, so a gun could come in quite handy.  This perpetuated guns as a symbol of the everyman hero.

Guns in Popular Culture

That segues perfectly into American popular culture and the theme of rugged individualism that's echoed for a couple of centuries now.  When someone is murdered or grievously wronged, the hero that brings justice to the bad guy(s) is rarely law enforcement, or at least not typical law enforcement.  The bad guy frequently ends the story in a body bag.  Again, think about the Wild West movies and books that glorified the Colt Peacemaker and Winchester Model 1873 as the guns that won the West.  

Some random examples that pop into my head:  John Rambo had to defend himself from incapable law enforcement in the first movie, then, still shunned by the establishment, headed back to Vietnam and rescues POW's and returns a hero, having fired hundreds of thousands of rounds.  Who doled out justice when they killed his dog?  John Wick, of course, with lots and lots of guns.  For the most part, the only time when law enforcement is portrayed as the hero is when one member goes rogue, climaxing in a shootout where the villain leaves in a body bag.  Case in point - While John McClain was a cop, he was essentially a rogue hero, who had to contend not only with Hans Gruber and company trying to kill him, but the LAPD's incompetence.  He was the true hero of Nakatomi Plaza, and Die Hard is definitely a Christmas movie.  And that's how many American men want to see themselves - the rugged hero who kicks ass.  And kicking ass requires a lot of firepower!  For most American wannabe's, the only elite unit they would be qualified for is Meal Team Six, but that's another story.  Contrast that with how law enforcement is portrayed in other countries' pop cultures, where they're shown as professional, capable, and bring the bad guy to justice as a team, through hard work, collaboration, and intellect.  At most, rules are bent, but never thrown out the window.  There's rarely a gunfight involved.  

Banning Guns

Rather than focusing on whether a ban on firearms would be a good idea (it isn't), I'd like to hone in on feasibility, or lack of it.  Let's begin with legality.  Even if legislation could be passed, which it wouldn't, any ban on guns would be immediately struck down in SCOTUS, particularly with the current set of justices, on the basis it violates the 2nd Amendment.  In reality, it doesn't, as I stated here.  But that doesn't matter.

Since we're already in the land of make believe, let's take it a step further and consider enforcement.  If you learned anything from the above on gun culture, it should be that enforcement will be painful.  First, there's no registration database to work from, except for NFA items (machine guns, short barreled rifles, etc.); knowing who has what guns is impossible.  You'll have more people claiming to have lost the ones they had in boating accidents, it'll seem like even those living in New Mexico are coastal.  The folks required to enforce the ban and confiscate all these guns are the ones who'll object the strongest to such a directive.  In other words, law enforcement won't enforce such a ban and won't collect shit.  That won't matter in certain jurisdictions, which will declare themselves gun sanctuaries.  This happened with several counties in Virginia, when the state seemed poised to ban assault weapons.  Also, armed skirmishes will happen, causing further death.  Seriously, there are those out there that mean it when they say, "you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."  Then, there are the more radical elements...  

As I said above, banning guns is an absolute pipe dream, so maybe focus on the problem, instead of the way it manifests itself.  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.