The fix is in for Hunter Biden

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Look at this, dummy:

• What exactly those "unlawful means" were in this case was up to the jury to decide. Prosecutors put forth three areas that they could consider: a violation of federal campaign finance laws, falsification of other business records or a violation of tax laws. 

So while it's "a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," it's a federal law that was allegedly broken to constitute the "by unlawful means" part.

IE, did they break a federal law to elect someone by unlawful means?

It's tough to say if they broke a federal law because the Dems didn't call an expert witness to testify to that, and the judge wouldn't let the defence's expert witness, the ex-FEC chair, testify freely. 

So, at the judge's discretion:

1. a known perjurer was allowed to speak freely,
2. a hostile bimbo, whom Trump had successfully sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and who had signed a letter saying that she had never had sex with Trump, was allowed to speak freely about her alleged sex with Trump,
3. but an expert witness would not be allowed to testify to one of the main aspects of the case. 

The aforementioned judge, the DA, and the prosecutor all had personal financial stakes in this case. The judge's daughter was making millions of dollars off of it and the other two were elected specifically to find a way to indict Trump, solely because of his political status. 

For sure all of this meets your excessively low moral, constitutional, legal and ethical standards, but it was a basic farce against America's democracy. 

No, No, And NO. 

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU? 

They broke a STATE law by fraudulently entering business records and another STATE law by interfere in in the STATE’s election for President. READ THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS. NO MENTION OF VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW IS THERE.

So why are you believing these BS websites that are LYING to you, when you can read the jury instructions for yourself, directly from the .GOV website, and see which crimes were alleged and the instructions which the jury followed? 

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

It's kinda hard to read the constitution now because the Dems, their DOJ, the FBI, and other DNC puppets like judges Merchan, Engoron & Chutkin, DA Bragg, etc have all wiped their arses with it. 

So you can’t read? 

None of those people have violated the US Constitution. Your problem is that you are a member of a cult and thus incapable of believing any possibility that Donald Trump could have possibly violated a law, even though, before he even ran for President, he was sued over 4,000 times and settled millions of dollars in lawsuits, including a $25 million fraud settlement relating to “Trump University.” Fraud means Stealing. So this should not surprise you. 

[Rebound]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Look at this, dummy:

• What exactly those "unlawful means" were in this case was up to the jury to decide. Prosecutors put forth three areas that they could consider: a violation of federal campaign finance laws, falsification of other business records or a violation of tax laws. 

So while it's "a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," it's a federal law that was allegedly broken to constitute the "by unlawful means" part.

IE, did they break a federal law to elect someone by unlawful means?

It's tough to say if they broke a federal law because the Dems didn't call an expert witness to testify to that, and the judge wouldn't let the defence's expert witness, the ex-FEC chair, testify freely. 

So, at the judge's discretion:

1. a known perjurer was allowed to speak freely,
2. a hostile bimbo, whom Trump had successfully sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and who had signed a letter saying that she had never had sex with Trump, was allowed to speak freely about her alleged sex with Trump,
3. but an expert witness would not be allowed to testify to one of the main aspects of the case. 

The aforementioned judge, the DA, and the prosecutor all had personal financial stakes in this case. The judge's daughter was making millions of dollars off of it and the other two were elected specifically to find a way to indict Trump, solely because of his political status. 

For sure all of this meets your excessively low moral, constitutional, legal and ethical standards, but it was a basic farce against America's democracy. 

The “expert witness” was allowed to testify. However, the judge determined that his expert testimony was to consist of legal opinion. Because of that, the judge explained that if the defense’s expert witness would testify, the prosecution could also have their own expert witness provide legal opinion, and answer comparable questions. Trump’s lawyers refused, and that was the end of it. 

[ironstone]

The DOJ is apparently using a laptop as part of their case against Hunter. 

I guess this would be the same laptop that they and the media had described as Russian disinformation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/it-only-took-4-years-doj-finally-acknowledges-hunter-laptop-is-legitimate-for-first-time/ar-AA1ncGMI

Has anyone from the left come clean and admitted that we were right about this story all along?😜

Hunter is the favorite son of Delaware's favorite son so what is this jury most likely to do?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

The election for President of the United States is conducted by state and local officials in the fifty states, under the laws of each state.

That would make the state responsible for the administration of the election but it's still a federal election. Saying there's no such thing as a federal election in the US is simply bonkers.  For that matter i believe some of the regulation is at the county level or local levels, but you wouldn't say there's no 'state' election for the pres as a result. 

BUT EVEN THEN  They are STILL subject to a number of federal election laws

Quote

 That’s why, for example, absentee and vote by mail rules are different in each state. Oregon, for example, is 100% vote by mail.  

I'm well aware of why that is. I know states currently are responsible for conducting and administrating the federal election voting in their area. But even then 

Quote

Thus, Donald Trump violated New York State election law, not Federal election law.  

To a point - there still is us federal election laws.  For example, the federal election must abide by the voting rights act of the 60's.  They can't set that aside.  There's an act that requires accessibility. There's an act requiring they accommodate military service people and those abroad. ETC ETC. 

So NO - it is NOT just a  state thing at all.  It is a FEDERAL election conducted under FEDERAL law where each state has a great deal of freedom in choosing how to conduct the particulars of the FEDERAL election in their own state, and with some counties or local areas also having some control. 

(Why the eff am I, a Canadian, having to explain this to you FFS?) 

And what I'm saying is that the states would be better off federalizing many of those options and creating a more constant and dependable voting framework.  IT is not enough for the elections to be fair - they must be SEEN to be fair. And if everyone believes they're playing by the same rules and cheating is hard that goes a long way to helping to give people confidence in their elections. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

No, No, And NO. 

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU? 

They broke a STATE law by fraudulently entering business records and another STATE law by interfere in in the STATE’s election for President. READ THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS. NO MENTION OF VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW IS THERE.

So why are you believing these BS websites that are LYING to you, when you can read the jury instructions for yourself, directly from the .GOV website, and see which crimes were alleged and the instructions which the jury followed? 

Again - that is not accurate. 

The charges are only a felony if they are done to cover up a greater crime, and federal election financing laws were definitely one of the proposed crimes.  They didn't have to 'prove' those crimes happened. only that the jury believed there was intent. 

And the Judge MENTIONS FEDERAL LAW MANY TIMES IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS. 

Read the jury instructions from Judge Juan Merchan in the Trump hush money trial | CNN Politics

 

Page 9 - Likewise, you will recall that you heard testimony that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violating the Federal Election Campaign Act, ...

Page 31 - In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax law

Page 31

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate with respect to any election for federal office, including the office of President of the United States, which exceeds a certain limit. In 2015 and 2016, that limit was $2,700. It is also unlawful under the Federal Election Campaign Act for any corporation to willfully make a contribution of any amount to a candidate or candidate’s campaign in connection with any federal election, or for any person to cause such a corporate contribution. For purposes of these prohibitions, an expenditure made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or his agents shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate. Page | 32 The terms CONTRIBUTION and EXPENDITURE include anything of value, including any purchase, payment, loan, or advance, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office. Under federal law, a third party’s payment of a candidate’s expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution. FECA’s definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” do not include any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by a magazine, periodical publication, or similar press entity, so long as such activity is a normal, legitimate press function. This is called the press exemption. For example, the term legitimate press function includes solicitation letters seeking new subscribers to a publication.

 

And several other times. 

 

So you are 100 percent wrong. Federal law was indeed mentioned MANY times and formed a key component of this case

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, No, And NO. 

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU? They broke a STATE law by fraudulently entering business records and another STATE law by interfere in in the STATE’s election for President.

Nice try, stupid.

The business record entry was a misdemeanour. 

The election law that was violated was a FEDERAL ELECTION LAW. Not a state election law. The state doesn't have a statute covering that alleged violation. 

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

So you can’t read? 

None of those people have violated the US Constitution. Your problem is that you are a member of a cult and thus incapable of believing any possibility that Donald Trump could have possibly violated a law, even though, before he even ran for President, he was sued over 4,000 times and settled millions of dollars in lawsuits, including a $25 million fraud settlement relating to “Trump University.” Fraud means Stealing. So this should not surprise you. 

I never brought the constitution into it stupid. You did. Are you suffering from alzheimer's now? 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Nice try, stupid.

The business record entry was a misdemeanour. 

The election law that was violated was a FEDERAL ELECTION LAW. Not a state election law. The state doesn't have a statute covering that alleged violation. 

 

Well, that is actually sort of true and also sort of not true

That's the problem with this case, they had to twist it into somebody knots and pretzels to make it work that following it is almost impossible.

New York is the only state that actually makes accounting errors any kind of crime if they're internal. Let's be clear, he didn't Get any kind of tax benefit from any of this. But the law in New York says even if it's your own internal books an error can be a misdemeanor.

That misdemeanor becomes a felony ONLY if it's part of a greater crime.

They don't need to PROVE the greater crime, the jury just had to believe there likely was one OR that he likely intended to commit one. 

There is a state law saying that you can't commit even a misdemeanor if it's to help someone win an election (basically), So if he committed the misdemeanor to help win an election he may be guilty of state laws

OR   it's a felony to make illegal campaign contributions.  SO  if this was a political donation then that's illegal because he didn't report it as such. 

OR  if it was a donation then it violated a state electon tax law. 

Now the jury didn't have to agree on WHICH 'law' may have been broken, as long as they all agreed that SOME other law was broken then it was valid. 

So you're dealing with a mish mash hodge podge of state AND federal laws dealing with a federal election and state book keeping requirements 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

The “expert witness” was allowed to testify. However, the judge determined that his expert testimony was to consist of legal opinion. Because of that, the judge explained that if the defense’s expert witness would testify, the prosecution could also have their own expert witness provide legal opinion, and answer comparable questions. Trump’s lawyers refused, and that was the end of it. 

Liar.

• "Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance," former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith posted on X on Monday. 

  "But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia – a pretty smart guy, even you hate him – once said ‘this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.’ Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of ‘negligence.’ They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms," he continued.

  Smith is an election law expert who Trump has called the "Rolls-Royce" of experts in his field, but he will not testify after Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith could speak before the court on the basic definitions surrounding election law but not expand beyond that scope. 

Basically Merchan said that he can read the statutes and explain what specific words mean, but not talk about how it has been interpreted and applied for the past 100 years and why. The last half of that sentence is what he is specifically qualified to talk about.

A lawyer fresh out of law school or a law professor from Puerto Rico could do what they were allowing the FEC chair to do. Then after the FEC chair basically says nothing, the jurors all have to rely on Merchan's biased/purchased opinion of how that law has been interpreted and applied. 

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well, that is actually sort of true and also sort of not true

That's the problem with this case, they had to twist it into somebody knots and pretzels to make it work that following it is almost impossible.

New York is the only state that actually makes accounting errors any kind of crime if they're internal. Let's be clear, he didn't Get any kind of tax benefit from any of this. But the law in New York says even if it's your own internal books an error can be a misdemeanor.

That misdemeanor becomes a felony ONLY if it's part of a greater crime.

They don't need to PROVE the greater crime, the jury just had to believe there likely was one OR that he likely intended to commit one. 

There is a state law saying that you can't commit even a misdemeanor if it's to help someone win an election (basically), So if he committed the misdemeanor to help win an election he may be guilty of state laws

OR   it's a felony to make illegal campaign contributions.  SO  if this was a political donation then that's illegal because he didn't report it as such. 

OR  if it was a donation then it violated a state electon tax law. 

Now the jury didn't have to agree on WHICH 'law' may have been broken, as long as they all agreed that SOME other law was broken then it was valid. 

So you're dealing with a mish mash hodge podge of state AND federal laws dealing with a federal election and state book keeping requirements 

It's fine if they don't want to consider the federal election laws that were allegedly broken. Those are out of their purview. 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

The DOJ is apparently using a laptop as part of their case against Hunter. 

I guess this would be the same laptop that they and the media had described as Russian disinformation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/it-only-took-4-years-doj-finally-acknowledges-hunter-laptop-is-legitimate-for-first-time/ar-AA1ncGMI

Has anyone from the left come clean and admitted that we were right about this story all along?😜

Hunter is the favorite son of Delaware's favorite son so what is this jury most likely to do?

Despite the regular misinformation from posters on this site, the DoJ never called the laptop disinformation. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Despite the regular misinformation from posters on this site, the DoJ never called the laptop disinformation. 

This is true... but it is what the FBI didn't do that is the problem. They knew then that all the claims about it being disinformation were not true and they remained silent. 

Their silence was just as condemning as they allowed it to happen. 

They had already been regularly meeting with social media companies and were proactively working with them to advise and provide information to combat false stories... but when this came up, they said nothing. In fact, they said no comment. 

They allowed the story that it was all Russian disinformation to run. 

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's fine if they don't want to consider the federal election laws that were allegedly broken. Those are out of their purview. 

Yes but the weird thing is they claim that those laws outside of their purview or violations of those laws ore even INTENDED violations are what enable the charges INSIDE their purview. 

in other words - " He is not guilty of a felony under our laws unless he is also guilty of other laws that are not ours to judge, but if you truly believe that he intended to or actually broke these other laws which we're not allowed to try him for here then that's good enough.  You just have to believe and then these laws come to life. I call it the tinkerbell theory of law  Belief in another violation not proven in court is sufficient grounds for a real violation to be tried in court 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Nice try, stupid.

The business record entry was a misdemeanour. 

The election law that was violated was a FEDERAL ELECTION LAW. Not a state election law. The state doesn't have a statute covering that alleged violation. 

 

To save time, Stupid, I'll just copy and paste from the reply from last time you told this lie. 🙄

 

"You lie. You've been corrected multiple times. You've been shown NY laws as instructed to the jury. You persist in lying. So, again, for the honest people playing along at home, the "other crime" is a violation of NY election law. 

From the damn jury instructions--literally the very next section from what WCM quoted

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.  Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct." 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

28 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Despite the regular misinformation from posters on this site, the DoJ never called the laptop disinformation. 

This is a little too complicated for someone of your low intellect.

1. Ironstone said that "the media" described the laptop as Russian disinformation, not the DoJ, which was 100% correct. He could have added 51 former intelligence officials but he didn't
2. his link says that the DoJ has finally acknowledged that the laptop is not Russian disinformation, (which is bizarrely late in coming) but Ironstone was correct about that as well. 
3. However, the FBI is part of the DoJ, and they tipped off media and social media outlets beforehand that "disinformation about a laptop may be coming", and that's why they were so proactive in crushing it. So you're only correct in saying that "the FBI never said it was fake after it came out" which is a pretty slimy little dodging of the actual facts (aka, exemplary conduct by your ultra-low standards)
4. then "51 former intelligence officials" all signed off on a letter saying that it appeared to be Russian disinformation
5. The DoJ is mainly responsible for the initial instruction - which was misleading - and their former officials are responsible for the 'official and 100% misleading rumour' that carried the day for Biden after it came out
6. the DoJ knew right from the very first moment that laptop story broke that the laptop was 100% legit and all the details that came out were accurate, but they chose the let the "Russian disinformation" narrative appear to be true for the past few years.
7. When Biden said that the laptop was Russian disinformation during the debates it was a total lie and he knew it, the FBI knew it, CNN knew it, the DoJ knew it, and they all participated in allowing that lie to stand. 

Edited June 10, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

To save time, Stupid, I'll just copy and paste from the reply from last time you told this lie. 🙄

 

"You lie. You've been corrected multiple times. You've been shown NY laws as instructed to the jury. You persist in lying. So, again, for the honest people playing along at home, the "other crime" is a violation of NY election law. 

From the damn jury instructions--literally the very next section from what WCM quoted

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.  Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct." 

 

 

As has already been posted they were ALSO instructed to consider the federal law. 

Lie harder, maybe it''ll help 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Lie harder, maybe it''ll help 

That was an insult to Hodad. He gives 110% to every lie he tells. You owe that dodgy liar an apology.

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

To save time, Stupid, I'll just copy and paste from the reply from last time you told this lie. 🙄

 

"You lie. You've been corrected multiple times. You've been shown NY laws as instructed to the jury. You persist in lying. So, again, for the honest people playing along at home, the "other crime" is a violation of NY election law. 

From the damn jury instructions--literally the very next section from what WCM quoted

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.  Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct." 

• any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means

It's only a federal law which was allegedly broken, and the FEC chair would have testified to the fact that they don't even consider what he did to be a violation of their law. Trump had legitimate family and business reasons for getting that NDA signed. 

You don't have to like the FEC interpretation of the law, but changing it requires legislation, not just a jury with vague instructions. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

• any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means

It's only a federal law which was allegedly broken, and the FEC chair would have testified to the fact that they don't even consider what he did to be a violation of their law. Trump had legitimate family and business reasons for getting that NDA signed. 

You don't have to like the FEC interpretation of the law, but changing it requires legislation, not just a jury with vague instructions. 

Exactly. What was this unlawful means?

Citing this as Hodad did doesn't explain that at all. 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That was an insult to Hodad. He gives 110% to every lie he tells. You owe that dodgy liar an apology.

I know he does his best at lying all the time but we still need to encourage him!!  He's only two fibs and a faked dossier away from winning his official democrat steak knife and backstab combo set!!!! He can do this!! 

[Hodad]

37 minutes ago, User said:

This is true... but it is what the FBI didn't do that is the problem. They knew then that all the claims about it being disinformation were not true and they remained silent. 

Their silence was just as condemning as they allowed it to happen. 

They had already been regularly meeting with social media companies and were proactively working with them to advise and provide information to combat false stories... but when this came up, they said nothing. In fact, they said no comment. 

They allowed the story that it was all Russian disinformation to run. 

I don't think they are under any obligation--or that there should be any expectation--that they provide "October surprise" campaign aid to candidates. Especially when they don't actually know and don't have the details. Comey made that "mistake" in 2016 and they seem to have learned from it.

Remember that the FBI knew what the FBI had, but they didn't necessarily know what Giuliani actually had, or what condition it was in or what claims he would make about the contents. There is no reason for the FBI to give Giuliani and the NY post some kind of blanket endorsement for whatever they might say. The custody and provenance of that information ended up taking months to work out. And it turns out there was nothing incriminating Joe Biden in any way. So if the FBI had acted rashly to add fuel to Giuliani's claims it could have, in a repeat of 2016, interfered in the election. With just weeks to go before voting day, the FBI absolutely did the right thing to not endorse Giuliani's version.

[Hodad]

37 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

This is a little too complicated for someone of your low intellect.

1. Ironstone said that "the media" described the laptop as Russian disinformation, not the DoJ,

I'm going to stop your little tantrum right there, Dummy. Try reading before you start slinging insults. 🙄

"The DOJ is apparently using a laptop as part of their case against Hunter. 

I guess this would be the same laptop that they and the media had described as Russian disinformation."

[User]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

I don't think they are under any obligation--or that there should be any expectation--that they provide "October surprise" campaign aid to candidates. Especially when they don't actually know and don't have the details. Comey made that "mistake" in 2016 and they seem to have learned from it.

LOL, when confronted with the facts of what they did, you turn to "obligation" 

I don't care what you think is their "obligation" here or not, it isn't the point. The point is that they did in fact interfere and and provide aid to Biden by all of a sudden deciding not to share factual information to social media when they had been doing so before and were in a meeting with them for that very purpose when asked about this. 

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

So if the FBI had acted rashly to add fuel to Giuliani's claims it could have, in a repeat of 2016, interfered in the election. With just weeks to go before voting day, the FBI absolutely did the right thing to not endorse Giuliani's version.

Wow, talk about a Strawman. They were not being asked to endorse Giuliani or his claims. The narrative that was falsely being pushed was that the entire thing was Russian disinformation, the FBI sat on correcting that lie which in fact did provide support to the Biden campaign. 

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't think they are under any obligation--or that there should be any expectation--that they provide "October surprise" campaign aid to candidates. Especially when they don't actually know and don't have the details. Comey made that "mistake" in 2016 and they seem to have learned from it.

Remember that the FBI knew what the FBI had, but they didn't necessarily know what Giuliani actually had, or what condition it was in or what claims he would make about the contents. There is no reason for the FBI to give Giuliani and the NY post some kind of blanket endorsement for whatever they might say. The custody and provenance of that information ended up taking months to work out. And it turns out there was nothing incriminating Joe Biden in any way. So if the FBI had acted rashly to add fuel to Giuliani's claims it could have, in a repeat of 2016, interfered in the election. With just weeks to go before voting day, the FBI absolutely did the right thing to not endorse Giuliani's version.

The FBI is part of the DOJ, and they pre-emptively kiboshed the story in the MSM by telling them that disinformation about a laptop was coming.

That means they actively killed an October surprise that was legitimate. And they're part of the DoJ.

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I'm going to stop your little tantrum right there, Dummy. Try reading before you start slinging insults. 🙄

"The DOJ is apparently using a laptop as part of their case against Hunter. 

I guess this would be the same laptop that they and the media had described as Russian disinformation."

Fine, but the DoJ did actively kibosh that story pre-emptively because the FBI is part of the DoJ.