While the "51 experts" letter was certainly controversial, claiming it was “election interference” stretches the term. The letter was an opinion from former intelligence officials, not a directive or action taken to change votes. Polls can suggest outcomes based on hypothetical scenarios, but that doesn’t establish election interference.
The legal status of Hunter Biden's laptop and its admissibility in court are complicated by chain of custody and authentication issues rather than strictly by how it was initially obtained. While it was reportedly left at a repair shop and later turned over to authorities, the passage of the laptop through multiple hands - along with potential data manipulation - creates challenges for verifying the authenticity and integrity of its contents.
For evidence to be admissible in court, it must have a clear and unbroken chain of custody, ensuring it wasn’t tampered with. Questions surrounding who accessed the laptop, who handled the data, and the potential for alterations make it difficult to use as evidence. So, even if it was legally obtained initially, these complications mean it's difficult to rely on its contents in a legal proceeding.
So, let's just assume that there *is* data on the laptop that is damning and shows wrong doing for whatever crimes you allege. The problem was that the involved parties broke the law in the handling of evidence and bringing it to the property authorities at the appropriate time. Imagine the laptop as a murder weapon, like a knife found at a crime scene. For it to be used in court, the police need to know exactly who handled it from the moment it was found until it reached the courtroom. If, instead, that knife passed through multiple people’s hands -- maybe some wiped fingerprints, others added new ones, or someone tampered with it - its reliability as evidence would be ruined. Similarly, because the laptop changed hands so many times without a clear, secure chain of custody, it’s impossible for the court to confirm its contents weren’t altered, making it unreliable as evidence.
Perhaps if your people did that thing they struggle with so often, following the law, it would be actionable evidence. It's not corrupt courts, it's just Trump has always hired the worst people and tricked you that they're the best because he said so. You believe him so much, that you'd rather reject laws as they're written, and indisputable facts, as with the chain of custody issue. Sorry this is tough for you.
Caption this Meme
