This post shows that summary witness Erika Jensen did not look, and therefore (unsurprisingly) did not find any evidence of tampering with the Hunter Biden laptop before FBI got it.
And this post notes that after Derek Hines successfully got Judge Noreika to exclude Hunter Biden from showing the gun shop owners 2020 political shenanigans, Hines submitted such evidence himself.
The coverage of the Hunter Biden trial includes FAR MORE political journos than the DC trial, along with people like Devlin Barret who should have been conflicted off this story years ago. As a result...
We get stuff like this from [not a DOJ reporter, nor a credible politics reporter] Ashley Parker utterly muddles the timeline in ways that obscure Trump's role (which Devlin has also been paid to obscure).
I GET that you are all being asked to sniff dick pics that you're not competent to do.
Complain.
This is not good reporting--and good reporting is coming from few of the other ~8 people covering this (maybe more than covered Trump's trial?)
Minutes after @woodruffbets reports Judge Maryellen Noreika sent a defendant to prison for a year for what gun shop owner ADMITS he did (add something to form to claim he had gotten proper ID 3 years after fact), Noreika prohibited Hunter from raising it. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
This is a fairly insane decision.
When the second form first came up in a hearing, Derek Hines said it was proof of extra diligence.
Nope. It was evidence the gun shop owner broke the law himself.
Noreika also excluded Hunter Biden's proposed witness who would talk about addiction, a more reasonable decision.
In Derek Hines (Hunter Biden prosecutor)'s first attempt to keep out the form the gun shop doctored, he cited THE GUN SHOP OWNER as proof that the form was all filled out before Hunter left the store.
What if instead of polling, Does Trump's felony conviction make you more or less likely to vote for him?" instead poll, "Does the GOP's wholesale attack on rule of law make you more or less likely to vote for it?"
Effectively, the mainstream press has given PERMISSION to voters to support fucking porn stars and committing fraud by treating this as a political question, whether something more fundamental.
Or how about this:
"Does the fact that Trump has been found guilty of defrauding university students, charity donors, banks, and New York state make you more or less likely to vote for him?"
As @Kerri_Kupec did before her, @whignewtons is pretending that when she was at DOJ, there wasn't selective targeting.
DOJ is about to sign a Privacy Act settlement with Peter Strzok bc Isgur herself was involved in releasing his texts but doing nothing abt Pro-Trump tweets.
Here's what happens when people wail on Xitter about their false claims about what Garland has done (which they don't know bc they haven't looked). 1) It takes focus away from people like Aileen Cannon or Sam Alito. 2) It lets J6C off the hook for their totally frivolous delay.
3) It turns this totally mythical belief about Garland into the catchall complaint--literally no different in structure from QAnon, and just as spun free of reality. 4) That, in turns, breeds impotence.
5) Furthermore, it's all based on the most impotent model of civics. Garland should just be able to snap his fingers--warrants and privilege be damned--and make Bad Man go away.
The problem is far bigger than Bad Man and your desire for instant gratification hides that.