(10-21-2020, 12:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: You're overthinking this.
You say I misrepresent myself.
But you admit you have no idea who I really am.
So how can you know I misrepresent myself?
You can't.
Just let it go.  
Treat me like the others.
All I admitted to is trying to be more deliberate about which side of my personality I would show here. I used the word "real" in the sense of "real life as opposed to internet forums" not "real as opposed to fake."
You (and many others here) are like that bad girlfriend whose subconscious malice causes her to interpret everything I say in the worst possible light.
Then you get even more mad, subconscious malice becomes actual malice.
Just let it go, dude.
Don't interact with me until you've let go of your anger.

I already told you I don't intend to derail this thread. 

You misrepresent yourself and your arguments all the time. You don't have to like it but that's my opinion.

I'm not mad, by the way. I don't even know why you'd think that. There's no malice or anger here.

(10-21-2020, 12:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: A government investigator does not need a warrant to look at things that the owner of the property has already voluntarily provided to them.  The story goes that the laptop was forfeited to the repair shop, then the repair shop voluntarily gave it to the FBI.  Is that story not true? Why would a warrant be needed if that story was true?
Now, they may want to access Hunter Biden's apple account to corroborate what they're finding on the hard drive, and yes that would take some time and a warrant.  But I'm pretty sure reputable cloud services employ AI-sniffers to flag possible child pornography so that can be voluntarily turned over to law enforcement, sometimes without alerting the offending user

Regardless - these hypotheticals have very little to do with the election.  Even if you showed that it was more likely than not that Hunter deliberately kept revealing nude photos of a 14 year old relative on his computer, you'd still have to show reason to believe Joe knew about it and didn't report, before anyone should care.

Yes, they still need a warrant. 

The owner of the laptop came into lawful possession of the property. That doesn't negate the requirement for search warrants. The law enforcement agency doesn't know what they'll find or to whom it belongs. Civil ownership would not be decided by law enforcement. For all they know, they could began searching the laptop, and Hunter proves the computer shop retained it illegally. Should they search that laptop without a search warrant, it will undoubtedly go through a probable cause hearing resulting in any charges being dropped because they didn't get the search warrant. 

Why do you believe the materials were stored on his Cloud? More often than not, they store it on specific hard drives with no direct access to the internet. While internet providers and similar services often flag websites or data involving that material, they don't catch everything, and them not flagging Hunter's account doesn't mean he doesn't have it. Them getting search warrants / court orders for internet providers (and the like) has more to do with proving who hard the laptop on specific dates when the underage materials were downloaded / accessed. It's to prove he was in possession of it and not uploaded by some foreign sources as some have claimed. 

These aren't hypotheticals. These are the steps they must take, and it's why it isn't an immediate arrest as you said. 

I don't have to prove Joe knew about it. Hell, he probably didn't know about it. I was simply telling you that you were wrong about how, had their be underage stuff on there, they would've handled it quickly and arrest Hunter already.

---