It sure does NOT look like you were right.
First, you allegedly know a thing or two about software, but apparently can not tell the difference between software and hardware in this case.
Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post.
The verifiable emails are a small fraction of 217 gigabytes of data provided to The Post on a portable hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey.
…
The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security experts who reviewed the data for The Post.
From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/
Some of the files have been verified to be Hunter Biden’s files. Nothing about the laptop itself has been verified as far as I know. It’s far from certain that the laptop that fell into Mac Isaac’s possession is hardware that was ever owned by Hunter Biden.
Second, and more importantly, it does not appear that there is information that is damaging to Joe Biden among the files on that laptop. We know this because people who were highly motivated to put information that is damaging to Joe Biden into the public eye have not done so. Instead they have supplied vague references to a ‘Big guy’ stripped of all context.
If they had information that was damaging to Joe Biden they’d be shouting it from the mountaintops. They’d be sticking in people’s faces anytime someone pointed a camera at them. They for sure would show us this damaging information in context if it existed.
Sam fell for this exact shit with the Sussmann indictment from Durham’s team.
Here’s a quote form that indictment:
On or about September 15, 2016, Originator-1 responded to Tech Executive-1, stating, in part, that the paper’s conclusion was “plausible” in the “narrow scope” defined by Tech Executive-1 .
Which implied but did not state that the DNS researchers were knowingly, falsely claiming that there was communication between a Trump Corp server and an Alfa Bank server. Much ado was made how the researchers cherrypicked or outright made up the data that was behind the Alfa/Trump connection.
We pointed out that it sure seemed weird for Durham to quote three nonconsecutive words from an email to imply but not state that the researchers didn’t believe their own claims. If Durham had emails where the researchers discussed making things up he would show it and he would state it. Instead we got this wishy washy, context free, hint that he handed to the right wing media so that they could take the ball and run with it.
Here’s those three words in context:
In the narrow scope of what you have defined above, I agree wholeheartedly that it is plausible. If the white paper intends to say that there are communications between at least Alfa and Trump, which are being intentionally hidden by Alfa and Trump I absolutely believe that is the case.
Sam swallowed that Durham indictment hook, line, and sinker despite the fact that Durham was pretty obviously not a straight shooter here.
Then he Swallowed Durham’s indictment of Danchenko showing his willingness to believe obvious lies when they align with conclusions that he has already reached.
When someone implies that they have smoking gun evidence but does not show it, you can be assured that they are trying to pull something. YOU can. Sam can’t.
I’ll close with one more example of Sam’s tragic gullibility the speaks for itself.