I'd be willing to bet that of all things, Qanon has been most damaging to child trafficking. To the point where even Bazzel Baz, a former CIA agent who founded the Association for the Recovery of Children, has said that Hunter's laptop has stuff on it, but because his dad is president, doj won't pursue.
Rudy had it for 2 years and wanted to use it for political gain.
And where was the Chain of Custody that any good computer repair should have?
But it's now associated with Q and laughed at.
It was never not a steaming pile of horsecrap, turning on a spit over a burning dumpster.
Forget about it. Lewdy's got other problems to worry about.
@mcfate maybe what I'm doing is blaming Rudy for his poor handling of child trafficking evidence.
I always thought the laptop existed, but didn't think there was anything damaging on it. A guy with Bazzel's reputation says otherwise and I'm inclined to listen.
Honestly, I haven't got a single clue what you're doing.
1. Saying Rudy is inept
2. Because child trafficking has become a Q thing, it isn't taken seriously.
Who's "not taking it seriously"? Has the DoJ stopped arresting people for child trafficking?
Let's ask Matt Gaetz.
Fair. Poor phrasing by me. But if a guy that runs an organization like ARC says there's something on the laptop...do we just ignore it because Rudy?
Absolutely. You bet we do. Completely. Five times a day, if that's what it takes.
Let's be clear: neither you nor I, paying attention or not, to "evidence" that might or might not exist in reality, will never have as much as a gram of bearing on any child trafficker's being arrested or not.
In any case, what might or might not have been on some laptop that might or might not have belonged to anyone in particular is totally irrelevant.
There's no court in the world in which that's ever going to be even remotely admissible. What would it be admissible AS?
Your response makes my point. Rudy has brought discredit to it. Like I said, I thought the same until ARC said otherwise. It makes you think. Sure Rudy is a loon, but what happens when a legit source corroborates?
What its admissible as is a good question. There'd need to be reason to search it and I don't know what that is.
It doesn't make me think, and no, my point isn't your point.
That putative laptop was NEVER evidence. All you had linking it to Biden was some blind dude's word.
And "what happens" when which "legit source" corroborates WHAT, precisely?
I mean, what happens when the moon turns to green cheese? What happens when pigs fly?
I've provided the name of the person and his business that believes there is something to it. If you don't want to give some benefit of the doubt to his claim despite his history and what he does, that is up to you.
@mcfate if you don't care, you don't care. If Gaetz being investigated is enough, that's fine.
With people like him, Trump, The Clintons, Prince Andrew and now Bill Gates all in the Epstein orbit it's tough to not at least be open to anyone that gets named perhaps actually being involved in someway.
I dunno. Seems pretty simple to me. I'm not a prosecutor. I don't work for the FBI.
Neither do you.
Hey, you don't know what you don't know.
So, I should attempt to know about EVERYTHING?
Like I say, getting yourself agguretsu over stuff you can't do anything about seems like a silly way to spend one's time to me.
But you do you. Just not in my notifications.
Hahaha, you responded to me! I wasn't in your notifications until then.
Are you intent of getting a tour of the oubliette, then? Seems so. Bye!
@L_D_G
As I've said, my doubting (or not) on this or that is pretty completely nugatory to anything's actually happening about it, so why would I bother? Is there some reason I need to care about this harder?