On Sunday, October 25, 2020, 06:55:18 PM PDT, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/10/25/washington-post-treat-hunter-biden-emails-as-foreign-intel-even-if-they-probably-arent/
>"Democracy dies in darkness. We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligience operation... even if they probably aren't. --Washington Post" >Self-admits Media Censorship and Bias. I agree that we should laugh at the portion of this comment quoted in that URL, said portion I italicize and bold below: >"The Washington Post published an op-ed Saturday advising readers: “We must >treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation >— even if they probably aren’t.” " >"The rationale for this argument, by Johns Hopkins Professor Thomas Rid, was >that Russian interference in 2016 — through the hacking of the Democratic >National Committee (DNC) email server, blamed by intelligence agencies on >Russia — provided damaging information about the inner workings of the party >(specifically, how it prevented socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont from >winning the nomination.)" >"Therefore any unexpected information — even if true — that could affect >voters’ choice in 2020 must be treated with suspicion." [end >of quote] James Comey committed a fraud on July 5, 2016, when he said, quoted here:https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html "FBI’s Comey says ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would bring a case against Clinton for emails." Actually, it would have been far closer to being accurate to say: 'No reasonable prosecutor would FAIL TO BRING A CASE against Clinton for emails'.While it is not absolutely certain that 'every prosecutor' WOULD have brought such a case, what I think is obvious is that any prosecutor COULD have chosen to bring such a case: All the case elements were present, the only thing missing might have been the will of a politically-de-motivated prosecutor to do that. Remember the old (?) saying, https://www.wsj.com/articles/indict-a-ham-sandwich-remains-on-the-menu-for-judges-prosecutors-1527863063 'You could get a Grand Jury to "indict a ham sandwich" ' Prosecuting Hillary Clinton would have been far easier.Or, perhaps: 'No reasonable politically-connected prosecutor who works for a Democrat-controlled administration would bring a case against head-Democrat Hillary Clintonwho is currently running for President, for emails'.I was fully convinced in mid-2015 that Hitlery Clinton was guilty of violations of the Espionage Act. Prosecutors COULD have charged and tried her, but they chose to not do so. https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-comey-saves-clinton-fbi-emails-perspec--0708-20160707-story.html "Yet Comey let her off the hook, citing lack of intent. But negligence doesn't require intent. Compromising national secrets is such a grave offense that it requires either intent or negligence. "Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense. But one can question that claim as well. Yes, it is safe to assume that there was no malicious intent to injure the nation. But Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account. "She meant to do what she did. And she did it. Intentionally. "That's two grounds for prosecution, one requiring no intent whatsoever. Yet Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought.[end of quote] And I completely agree with this, all of it, and I believe I agreed with this sentiment in mid-2015. I said long ago, elsewhere, that Comey chose the only path consistent with Hitlery Clinton getting elected to the Presidency in 2016. He knew that if he indicted her, she would definitely have lost the election. So, he DIDN'T indict her. That, of course, didn't guarantee that she would have been elected, as we saw nearly four years ago. So, to me, it's obvious that Comey deliberately manipulated the election of 2016. We are now seeing a different, though distinctly similar, fraud play out. Other investigators, and other prosecutors, have been failing to bring a criminal case against Joe and Hunter Biden. The nature of that fraud is essentially the same that we knew about in mid-2019, the main difference now is that we know far more evidence of their corrupt actions exist, and has actually come to light. But the same rules apply: These days, most people would probably agree, albeit some reluctantly, that if Joe and Hunter Biden had been indicted "early" on this, he would not win the Presidency. Indeed, if Joe Biden had been indicted pre-2020, he almost certainly would not have won the Democrat nomination. He would have been replaced by...somebody else.The laptops apparently found their way to the FBI around mid-December 2019. I suppose that delay is reasonable: this was about six months after they were dropped off to the computer repair shop. The people who had access to that information apparently didn't break the story then, or else we would have heard about it, right? And I don't think it would have been unreasonable for them to give the FBI a couple months to investigate and only then publicize this material. If they hadn't, they would probably have been criticized for not giving that FBI 'time to do their job'. Okay. But I _DO_ seriously wonder why those people who were aware of this matter (the repair-shop staff and owner(s), AND the people to whom they sent the information, apparently Giuliani) waited until October 2020 to tell us what they found. The only 'extra' piece of information we've discovered now, as a consequence of this delay, is that the FBI must be serioiusly corrupt to have 'sat on' these hard-drives as long as they did. But the people who delivered the hard drives, or maybe the copies, to the FBI knew that the FBI was trying to cover-up Biden's fraud. And they must have known the FBI was delay, as early as February 2020. So far, it certainly looks like this story would easily have kept Joe Biden from winning the upcoming election...but that was only true if the story had been released in 'enough time' to have it permeate through the resisting media and the public. And be checked and re-checked. I'm wondering whether 'we' (meaning the people who want to rescue the country from Joe Biden) shouldn't not only be angry at Biden himself, and the FBI, and probably the Department of "Justice", but also angry at the people who apparently intentionally delayed the release of this story from February to October 2020. Is there a credible reason for this astonishing delay?Biden's allies would certainly want to have the story delay at least until after the election. And they almost got that. ALMOST. WHO made the decision to only release this story until October? It can now be called the "October Surprise". But it could just as easily have been the "February Surprise". Who screwed up? Jim Bell
