I wasn't aware that there was much of a "point" being made. It's all relying on assumptions. I don't have to automatically accept O.Ps premise.
I'm pretty sure it's consequential for the FBI to be planting DNA....
This is ridiculous. Of course they're covering up for Hunter Biden. But that doesn't mean they planted DNA and it also isn't even the same thing as investigating the laptop. One is a pretty clear cut thing like a DNA test...the other is a forensic examination of a computer and its contents.
And if that doesn't make it clear, how about this equation?
Warner's DNA evidence at the scene = vaporized DNA in a bomb blast
How is that an assumption when it's the official story?
The point of this is the FBI hasn't investigated Hunter Biden's laptop to even a tenth of this level of detail. You obviously are unaware if you don't see the "point" of this. This has nothing to do with whether or not the DNA evidence is planted or organic, that I can tell you.
Yes I "realise" that. You sound dumb for saying that. I wasn't contradicting that story. I was referring to the primary assumption that all the DNA was vaporised where it might have been sourced.
Tried your links, second didn't work. No information on vaporised DNA which you later imply is the "official story".
Your 'equation' is just the title of the post.
How is it an assumption? Because you're assuming that all the DNA was vaporised or that it was gathered where it would have/could have been vaporised. You don't have the slightest clue how they discovered that evidence yet.
Yes of course the FBI is stonewalling an investigation into Hunter/Joe. That's a highly politically charged situation involving the losing Presidential candidate and his son. And allegations from people overseas and involving financial fraud. The two cases are silly to compare, but as usual the FBI looks inept in both and/or focused in one.
If you say it doesn't matter whether DNA was planted, then you're agreeing with me. I asked why we needed a conspiracy to explain this and you've just given me the answer. We don't.
I wasn't aware that there was much of a "point" being made. It's all relying on assumptions. I don't have to automatically accept O.Ps premise.
I'm pretty sure it's consequential for the FBI to be planting DNA....
This is ridiculous. Of course they're covering up for Hunter Biden. But that doesn't mean they planted DNA and it also isn't even the same thing as investigating the laptop. One is a pretty clear cut thing like a DNA test...the other is a forensic examination of a computer and its contents.
You realize the official story is that FBI investigators found Warner's DNA evidence at the scene, right?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/nashville-hero-police-officers-recall-bomb-countdown-eerie/story?id=74923946
Archived link here (eventually) - https://archive.is/1B700
And if that doesn't make it clear, how about this equation?
Warner's DNA evidence at the scene = vaporized DNA in a bomb blast
How is that an assumption when it's the official story?
The point of this is the FBI hasn't investigated Hunter Biden's laptop to even a tenth of this level of detail. You obviously are unaware if you don't see the "point" of this. This has nothing to do with whether or not the DNA evidence is planted or organic, that I can tell you.
Yes I "realise" that. You sound dumb for saying that. I wasn't contradicting that story. I was referring to the primary assumption that all the DNA was vaporised where it might have been sourced.
Tried your links, second didn't work. No information on vaporised DNA which you later imply is the "official story".
Your 'equation' is just the title of the post.
How is it an assumption? Because you're assuming that all the DNA was vaporised or that it was gathered where it would have/could have been vaporised. You don't have the slightest clue how they discovered that evidence yet.
Yes of course the FBI is stonewalling an investigation into Hunter/Joe. That's a highly politically charged situation involving the losing Presidential candidate and his son. And allegations from people overseas and involving financial fraud. The two cases are silly to compare, but as usual the FBI looks inept in both and/or focused in one.
If you say it doesn't matter whether DNA was planted, then you're agreeing with me. I asked why we needed a conspiracy to explain this and you've just given me the answer. We don't.
It's not a conspiracy. That's the point.
DNA was recovered from the site of the explosion. That's all that first part about vaporization means. You're reading way too much into things.
If the DNA was vaporised that implies it wasn't "found" at all.
Did look at the link from O.P?
"Lie" "Yeah right now did they find DNA in a burning van" "Muh 24 hours!"
Sounds like a conspiracy being implied to me. Perhaps there is one too..but I don't think this is the strongest evidence.