Hunty biden gave a deposition about the notorious laptop. Didn't go well.

Unless you're an attorney or have been involved in a civil lawsuit you probably aren't sure what a deposition is.  

For our purposes here, attorneys for your opponent ask you questions for somewhere between an hour and six hours or so, and you're under oath.  

One of the most disconcerting features is, if you were in court your own attorney would be able to keep you from having to answer some questions by objecting.  But in a depo, after your attorney objects and states the reason, he or she says "You may answer."  Meaning you must answer the question.

Depending on how the judge rules, the other side might not be able to introduce your answer in court, but they nevertheless know it, which can rattle a lying witness--because you never know what the other side can prove.  And if you're caught lying, that's perjury.

Of course if you're a Democrat there's no penalty for perjury, just like Bill Clinton and almost certainly Hunty biden.

With that background: a few sharp readers may know that back in April of 2019 a man purporting to be Hunty biden brought a non-working laptop computer to a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware (principal home of the biden family).  The man asked the owner if he could repair the device, and signed a standard "repair order," including a phone number to call if the laptop was repairable.

The owner of the shop repaired the laptop and repeatedly called the phone number the laptop's owner had written on the repair order, saying the laptop was ready for pickup.

Despite repeated efforts and leaving voicemails, he got no response, so after 60 days, per the terms on the repair order, he took possession of the laptop and began examining the contents.

What he found shocked him: digital photos of a man who certainly *looked* like Hunty doing drugs and cavoring with prostitutes.

Eh, no big deal--the corrupt crack addict isn't running for office and no Democrat DA would even think of charging Hunty for the drugs or anything else.  But turns out the nude pics were nothing compared to the other info on the hard drive: over 35,000 emails and texts and voicemails implicating Hunty and the Democrat party's presidential candidate in a massive scheme of being paid tens of millions by China, $3.5 million from the wife of the mayor of Moscow and ten million from the owner of a Ukrainian energy company.

Oh, and one email from Hunty to his daughter complaining that he had to give half his income to "pop"--presumably his father.

The shop owner was stunned.  He had no idea what to do.  He was certain the Wilmington cops wouldn't do anything, but he naively believed the FBI would investigate and take appropriate action.  So he called the FBI and told 'em the story.

In December of 2019 two FIB agents [sic] showed up at the shop and seized both the laptop and the repair order.

Months passed with no word from the FIB [sic] about the apparent huge scandal.  Finally the owner realized the FIB [sic] was gonna sit on the damning laptop clear through the 2020 election.  So he gave a copy of the hard drive to Rudy Giuliani--who gave a copy to the New York Post.

Finally on October 14th or so--just three weeks before the crucial presidential election-- the New York Post published the story on its front page.

Normally the gravity of the information on the laptop would have made the story go viral.  But thanks to the efforts of the FIB and DJO [sic] *weeks before the story broke,* social media were already alerted to not only block any re-posts of the story itself, they locked the Post's account and deleted every user comment, link and "like."

There's your "justice department" in action, citizen.

The White House was ready: secretary of state Tony Blinken instantly contacted a friend in the CIA, who got 50 other former intel agents to sign a letter essentially claiming the laptop did NOT belong to Hunty, but was cunning "Russian disinformation"--much like Hilliary's successful tale about Trump started the Media chanting (in unison) "collusion."  

Disinformation.  But in Hilliary's case it really *was* a fake story.

EVERY Mainstream Media outlet--obviously including the NY Times and WaPo--parroted the "Russian disinformation" lie, and half the population believed their lies.  (Many months later both shill-sheets admitted the laptop was authentic, but by that time it hardly mattered.)

Opinion polls later found that roughly 35% of Democrats said if they'd known about the story they wouldn't have voted for biden.

So that's all "old news," and you can decide how much of it you actually heard about.  But today there's more.  A lot more.  And it's fun for our side.

Because the bidens control the small state of Delaware, and Wilmington, after the story broke few locals used the repair shop, and the owner was eventually forced to close.  He later sued Hunty for defamation.  But that's not the good news.  

Hunty's attorneys countersued, claiming the owner had invaded his privacy by giving the contents of the laptop's hard drive to a third party.  Which brings us to the background on depositions at the top of this piece.

Last June--two and a half years after the FIB seized the laptop--Hunty sat for a deposition in the case.  And now that six-hour deposition has been released--and it makes Hunty look really, really bad.

When asked directly if the laptop was his, he refused to admit it was.  Instead he gave two different answers:  He alternately denied it was his or claimed he didn't know.

That's a problem, even for the "preznit's" pampered son...because he's suing the shop owner for *invading his privacy.*  If it's not his laptop, and not him in the pics, how can he rationally claim it's an invasion of his privacy?

Throughout the questioning Hunty repeatedly  claimed his privacy had been invaded by the release of the laptop's contents, but then moments later denying the laptop was his.

Hunty has repeatedly denied that the laptop is his.  But to win the lawsuit he has to admit the laptop definitely was his *and* that the shop owner had no right to release the info to a third party.

Hunty claims he's been damaged by publication of personal material that would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person," yet much of the material, such as sexually explicit photos, was "voluntarily shared by [Hunter] Biden with others through the website, 'Pornhub.'

But of course the sex photos aren't the real problem.  Instead it's the revelations that Hunty was collecting ten of millions of dollars from foreign governments and companies.  His seat on the board of directors of Burisma alone netted him a salary of exactly a million dollars a year ($83,333.33 per MONTH).

Of course with corrupt Democrat judges all this may well be swept under the rug, like every other Dem scandal.  Because really, citizen, what difference, at this point, does it make?

(Points if you know who uttered that infamous line, and where.)

Source. (about 2/3 of the way down the page)

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=406134