[ExI] pay to not play

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:44 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> >…Considering that the laptop was not in his custody for some time,
> proving that Hunter Biden put them there could be difficult. With good
> lawyers--which I'm sure he'd have--this wouldn't be a slam dunk.
>
> It would be except for two things: the computer repairman thought of that
> and made sure copies of that disk were in the custody of others.
>

How do we know the computer repairman didn't edit said copies before
handing them over, as would be consistent with an attempt to forge evidence?


> The other is that the subject made a video of himself with a harlot
> struggling to explain how (words fail me (as they so seldom do (but they
> failed him too at that moment))) these videos were that his three Russian
> friends stole.  Even that video itself falls under the category of illegal
> pornography because there was not enough cotton between the two of them to
> fill the top of an aspirin bottle.  If all that is on yet another laptop in
> the possession of the Russians, it is a pretty safe bet the Russians have
> the goods on this man, and possibly his father.
>

Given how many people have had access to the laptop's files, and how little
credibility there remains as to the presence of any specific illegal
content (given the ample opportunity people have had to forge such), it
hardly counts as blackmail material on Hunter.  Even if it were, there's no
link to assume this is also blackmail material about his father.

One might as well speculate about all the child sex trafficking you were
engaging in a few years ago, and ask when you intend to turn yourself over
to the police.  (I am not actually accusing you of this, but if you or a
family member of yours got into politics, a political opponent could do so.)

What's that?  There's a lack of actual evidence?  Yeah, that's the point.

This repairman makes claims about what was on the laptop.  Someone can make
similar claims about what they saw you doing.

All the other "evidence" in either case is likewise well within what
multiple parties have had ample time and opportunity to falsify, and for
that reason is generally not considered by the courts.


> >…Here you go with nullification, again. Are you seriously saying that if
> they don't prosecute every possible violation of a law, the law ceases to
> exist?
>
> If they don’t prosecute that one, it deals a serious blow to the FBI’s
> credibility.  Reason: it is so visible, everybody knows about it, everybody
> will be watching to see if they pull the old “no reasonable prosecutor”
> line again.
>

Non-sequituer.  Whether or not they choose to prosecute someone, even if
people suspect their reasons, has nothing to do with whether or not the law
exists and can be enforced when they do choose to prosecute.


> >… Prosecutors have to decide which cases are winnable all of the time…
>
> Ja and if prosecutors decide that one isn’t winnable, the system loses all
> credibility.  It becomes very clear that justice is for sale.
>

Justice is for sale to some degree, and yet the law remains.  This is not a
binary absolute where the existence of one injustice brings down the entire
legal system.  That's like trying to claim that one person not paying their
taxes immediately bankrupts the entire US federal government.


> >>…Dave I don’t really see it as a problem on the part of the voters, but
> rather the elected government. But I do see a way out of this mess.
>
>
>
> >…OK, so you don't think that the people who elect and re-elect, ad
> nauseam, bad elected officials are fundamentally responsible?  -Dave
>
>
>
> Sure we are, but
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

"Fundamentally responsible" means they are the root cause and need to be
addressed, and that delays to address other causes are delays in addressing
the root cause - which may as well be deliberate attempts to avoid ever
addressing the root cause, for the effect they have.


> also consider our times, when our own FBI appears to be corrupt and
> working for a particular party.  How hard would it be for the FBI to rig an
> election?  I don’t mean merely improperly influencing social media and
> starting false conspiracy theories, I mean actual voter machine tampering,
> creating counterfeit mail-in ballots, all that.
>

Given all the independent election workers who would be working against the
FBI, much harder than you think.  See for instance
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election-cybersecurity/rumor-control -
these controls would act against the FBI just like they would act against
any oher outside group attempting to rig the election.

It would be easier for secretaries of state to do this.  Fortunately, most
of them - Republican or Democrat - seem to place integrity of elections
above partisan politics, even those Republicans who were threatened with
primary challenges specifically for refusing to rig the vote.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20221205/14cef336/attachment.htm>