Where do you get your facts? MSNBC? Rachel Madcow?
Various sources. Unlike some others here I don't look only to source that will tell me what I want to hear. But as to MSNBC specifically, rarely to almost never
Legally blind? Do you know what that even means?
MacIsaac admitted he was unable to confirm it was actually Hunter Biden who dropped off the laptop because he is "legally blind" and only realized it was the former vice president's son when Hunter stated his name for the point of contact.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-story/https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunters-laptop-to-rudy-speaks-out-in-bizarre-interview (has recording of interview)
The "personal information" BS is just that. If I give you my personal information because you need it, you have a duty to protect it. If you voluntarily or accidentally give me personal information without me asking for it or saying I need it, that's 100% your fault, and I have no duty to protect it. If I found your paycheck stub on the sidewalk, and posted it on Instagram, your pay info, personal data, SSN, etc would now be public. Nothing you can do. I did not steal it.
Most repair shops have a disclaimer you have to sign saying they are not responsible for any data you give them, and that they may have to destroy it. Looking in a hard drive at the things someone stores is snooping, but it's not illegal. Now if the owner tried to blackmail the Bidens to get it back or have it go public, that would be illegal.
Clearly a repair place has been given permission to access a device that people pay them to fix so you are correct, no legal violation because they snooped around. However releasing that information out to the public opens one up to at least some civil liability. If I found your wallet and posted your credit card number or social security number online are you going to say that there is nothing you could do against me? Giuliani being a lawyer isn't some magical Trump card. Plus notice how I said "possibly" violates laws. I didn't say that he did for certain. Do you know all federal, state, and city laws that would apply to that store owner? Are you sure the store owner did? Pretty big gamble unless he was sure.
Let's refocus here though, the issue is not whether he broke a law or part of the contract, the issue is whether such a thing is plausible, that a store owner would go around releasing customer's personal information to private individuals. That is a red flag in the story. Maybe the owner just is that slimy and unethical, a possibility but still a red flag.
BTW, the identity of who dropped the PC off for repair is irrelevant. It's been said it may have likely been a staffer at the Beau Biden Foundation. All that matters is that it was left there and never retrieved -- ever. There's also evidence the Biden's lawyer called the repair shop last week and asked for the laptop back. If the owner's evidence proves that happened, then the lawyer has already confirmed the laptop is authentic. Why else would he be calling to claim property? He must own it, or that would be illegal.
Not irrelevant at all. The owner being legally blind offers a margin for plausible deniability. It makes the story harder to attack, awfully convenient. And the store owner appears to be a Trump supporter. Nothing wrong with that, but something to consider. In looking through current stories I haven't seen any detail as to the evidence that someone called to pick up the laptop. Is there a voicemail or is it just the store owner's word or something?
So far, nobody on the Biden campaign has denied the authenticity of the emails and other data on the laptop. Today, the Director of National Intelligence, Ratcliff, said they have NO EVIDENCE that the Biden emails are part of any Russian disinformation campaign. Meanwhile, the MSM and Adam Schiff said today they KNOW this came from the Kremlin. You know, the same Schiff that said sufficient evidence of Trump colluding with Russia was in the public domain? Still waiting for that evidence to make its way to the light of day.
Again, I am not saying the whole story is fake, I am only saying that there are quite a few red flags to this story, quite a few convenient circumstances. I am not making up my mind about this yet, it is too early to form an informed opinion with so many allegations and so little confirmed facts. Sometimes the craziest stories end up being completely true so it is possible but any objective person can see there are things here to be suspicious of. Maybe parts of this are true and parts of it aren't, who knows? A good lie always contains elements of the truth. I didn't even list all the red flags in this story either.
Don't be afraid to question the story just because you want it to be true. This one is just a little too perfect so far. It would be impossible to create such a fake story for the purposes of helping the election either.