Chomper Higgot

And yet you yourself had this to say a few short moments ago:

Of little concern to anyone other than those fixated on gossip of the rich and famous.

No, I’m suggesting the UK’s gutter press are doing what they always do, making sensational headlines out of stuff that really doesn’t matter. Here’s my statement: I doubt you’ll find many people in the UK who are not reading the gutter press who hold any strong sympathies towards or against Harry. It’s all low end celebrity gossip to distract from the things Brits need to be concerned with.

I doubt very much you have read that particular book. So no, you are not getting your views straight from the horse’s mouth. Nor is anyone else who have not read that book.

Let’s have no more talk of BREXIT returning power and sovereignty to Parliament from you then.

Normally I wouldn’t…..

It depends which papers these Brits read. If they are reading the same papers that hounded Harry’s mother then yes, they’ll very likely hold the views they are being fed.

Excellent news. A clear example of environmentalism at work and of the need for international cooperation, and regulation to protect the environment. Well done science, engineering and environmental activism.

One can, but one should not.

Good to see President Biden’s lawyers acting decisively to report this find. Good to see USAG acting decisively to investigate the matter. If criminality is found, then indict. The criminal holding, withholding or concealment of classified documents should always be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If criminality is not found, make a clear unequivocal statement to that effect.

I don’t think Hillary popping out of your head would be the defense your lawyers would advise. Your lawyer would advise you that you can have no certain knowledge of what’s on the computer because: A. It was not in your custody for a protracted period of time. B. During the time it was not in your custody other people accessed the computer.

If you arrived the US and your laptop went missing at the airport but turn d up months later with evidence of having been accessed by multiple people since you last saw it. What would be your defense if something illegal was found on that lap-top. Think carefully before answering, the question is a trap.

And that’s all that is needed for ‘Reasonable Doubt’.

I’m not making wild assertions, you are. I’m referring to that centuries old judicial maxim (brace yourself)…. ‘Reasonable Doubt’.

Hunter Biden certainly can’t. He doesn’t even know who has has access to this computer since he allegedly last saw it. What is indisputable is, lots of people had access to this computer before it was taken under the custody of the FBI.

If + Could And you are right, you don’t have complete knowledge of what is on Hunter Biden’s computer. Hunter Biden himself cannot swear under oath that he has complete knowledge of what is on this computer given it has been out of his possession for so long and I’m the hands of multiple people before being placed into the custody of the FBI.

Good luck with that.

That might be the case if the documents were not recovered from ‘Boxes’ ’ in ‘Trump’s Mar a Largo’ estate and if the FBI had no evidence of Trump instructing that those documents be retained, moved or hidden. And even if you managed to clutch all those straws there’s another problem. Trump has admitted to having the documents. It gets better. Trump asked for the documents to be returned to him.

If + If + If + If

There’s a marked difference between DNA evidence that is categorically link d to the identity of individuals and computer data files which may be added by anyone holding possession of the computer.

I suggest you go read up on Chain of Custody and what particular problems it is intended to address. I have.

That is no excuse for Government by executive edict to continue.

You haven’t addressed the point I have made. The Bill transfers the powers of Parliament to the Executive. This is a departure from the laws of the nation being deterred by Parliament to the laws of the nation being deterred by Executive edict. Are you supportive of this? Or should Parliament be Sovereign?

The repeal of laws has a centuries long history, it follows the democratic process in which Parliament is endowed with the power to make laws and, where necessary, repeal laws. The process is subject to Parliamentary review, debate and approval. The Retained EU Law Bill aims to hand these powers to Ministers (remove these power from Parliament), replacing the democratic processes of Parliament with executive edict. Perhaps you are content to see the Sovereignty of Parliament and the Democratic process usurped.

I’ve never argued that the UK should continue doing more or less the same as it’s been doing for past 15 years, and absolutely not for the course it’s been following for the past 12 years.