Hunter Biden’s Lawyers Put Fox News on Notice, Demand Retractions and an Apology – Or Risk a Defamation Lawsuit

[Pavel Mosko]

"Lawyers for Hunter Biden are demanding Fox News issue corrections about some of its coverage of the president’s son or risk a defamation lawsuit, according to the Washington Post."

MSN

I found myself laughing at this one because of its potential to backfire. which would be well deserved in my opinion. I guess it does have one big plus on their end, namely that the biggest reason for a lawsuit is the ability to prove damages and if Hunter (I assume) is losing business and suffering from other financial hardship and the people that are canceling the contracts, backing out of business deals etc. are naming what is going on in the news (where Fox is at the center of things) then that most important criteria is likely met.

The problem is there are other considerations such as: if the information is actually true, and if the information is false does it appear to be spread purely for malicious reasons. From what I can tell, Fox is only (or mostly) guilty of reporting factual information on a story is truly newsworthy, when the rest of mainstream media that has a pro-Democratic bias would rather turn a blind eye.

 

[HTacianas]

"Lawyers for Hunter Biden are demanding Fox News issue corrections about some of its coverage of the president’s son or risk a defamation lawsuit, according to the Washington Post."

MSN

I found myself laughing at this one because of its potential to backfire. which would be well deserved in my opinion. I guess it does have one big plus on their end, namely that the biggest reason for a lawsuit is the ability to prove damages and if Hunter (I assume) is losing business and suffering from other financial hardship and the people that are canceling the contracts, backing out of business deals etc. are naming what is going on in the news (where Fox is at the center of things) then that most important criteria is likely met.

The problem is there are other considerations such as: if the information is actually true, and if the information is false does it appear to be spread purely for malicious reasons. From what I can tell, Fox is only (or mostly) guilty of reporting factual information on a story is truly newsworthy, when the rest of mainstream media that has a pro-Democratic bias would rather turn a blind eye.

I don't think anyone wants to answer any questions under oath.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Just noticed this story in the news that adds some context for me, but on another issue.


"In the 14-page letter to Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, Biden attorney Abbe Lowell claimed that repair shop shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac unlawfully accessed Hunter’s laptop data and worked with former President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to “weaponize” sordid and incriminating contents on it against Joe Biden."

MSN

www.msn.com

The problem of all this is that public figures do not have the same expectation of privacy (due to their fame) as most citizens. In general, the relatives of politicians are off limits, if they are away from politics and want to live lives far removed from politics then they are good to go. The problem is that is not Hunter Biden. He has associated with his dad not just as a supportive son (like the Obama daughters) but as an adult has gone away on business trips with his father on Air Force one and two and made business connections. Moreover, he nakedly has profited from his father's political affiliations getting lucrative jobs, art deals etc. from the hopes of rich people and foreign politicians and businessmen looking to buy favor with his dad. Furthermore, he likely is the reason behind some political actions concerning Ukraine and China in the past, as well as impeachment efforts from Trump (covering up his business dealings).

 

[Aldebaran]

Didn't Hunter abandon that laptop at the repair shop? Wouldn't that make it the property of the repair shop owner?
Also, wasn't the MSM denying that this laptop even existed, and that it was just a conspiracy theory made up by conservatives???

Perhaps it's Fox News and other conservatives who are owed a lawsuit win (settlement) for defamation. However, it seems that Hunter and his attorney wants to cover themselves by deflecting attention by using psychological projection in the legal system.

 

[Blade]

good luck with that

 

[Pommer]

Didn't Hunter abandon that laptop at the repair shop? Wouldn't that make it the property of the repair shop owner?
Also, wasn't the MSM denying that this laptop even existed, and that it was just a conspiracy theory made up by conservatives???

A laptop was supposedly “abandoned” at the Delaware repair shop. I’m pretty sure that the manufacturer of this product takes great pains to identify each of the devices it sells with unique (and hard to counterfeit) identifiers (SN, MAC addresses etc.) and can say with a fair amount of certainty where and when each machine was purchased.

Perhaps it's Fox News and other conservatives who are owed a lawsuit win (settlement) for defamation. However, it seems that Hunter and his attorney wants to cover themselves by deflecting attention by using psychological projection in the legal system.

It seems that H Biden did leave a laptop with someone with less than stellar ethics who knew a “Roger Stone”, (who appears to be the same “Roger Stone” who received a pardon from Donald Trump in the waning hours of his Presidency). [/baselessSpeculation]

 

[wing2000]

Just noticed this story in the news that adds some context for me, but on another issue.


"In the 14-page letter to Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, Biden attorney Abbe Lowell claimed that repair shop shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac unlawfully accessed Hunter’s laptop data and worked with former President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to “weaponize” sordid and incriminating contents on it against Joe Biden."

MSN

www.msn.com

The problem of all this is that public figures do not have the same expectation of privacy (due to their fame) as most citizens. In general, the relatives of politicians are off limits, if they are away from politics and want to live lives far removed from politics then they are good to go. The problem is that is not Hunter Biden. He has associated with his dad not just as a supportive son (like the Obama daughters) but as an adult has gone away on business trips with his father on Air Force one and two and made business connections. Moreover, he nakedly has profited from his father's political affiliations getting lucrative jobs, art deals etc. from the hopes of rich people and foreign politicians and businessmen looking to buy favor with his dad.

He's certainly not the alone on that count....

Furthermore, he likely is the reason behind some political actions concerning Ukraine and China in the past, as well as impeachment efforts from Trump (covering up his business dealings).

Pure speculation. OTH, a former POTUS is on tape....

 

[Say it aint so]

"Lawyers for Hunter Biden are demanding Fox News issue corrections about some of its coverage of the president’s son or risk a defamation lawsuit, according to the Washington Post."

MSN

I found myself laughing at this one because of its potential to backfire. which would be well deserved in my opinion. I guess it does have one big plus on their end, namely that the biggest reason for a lawsuit is the ability to prove damages and if Hunter (I assume) is losing business and suffering from other financial hardship and the people that are canceling the contracts, backing out of business deals etc. are naming what is going on in the news (where Fox is at the center of things) then that most important criteria is likely met.

The problem is there are other considerations such as: if the information is actually true, and if the information is false does it appear to be spread purely for malicious reasons. From what I can tell, Fox is only (or mostly) guilty of reporting factual information on a story is truly newsworthy, when the rest of mainstream media that has a pro-Democratic bias would rather turn a blind eye.

I wouldn't worry about it.
The FOXnews lawyers as a defense of FOXnews personalities in defamation suits, always argue no reasonable person would take what they say serious.

 

[Say it aint so]

A laptop was supposedly “abandoned” at the Delaware repair shop. I’m pretty sure that the manufacturer of this product takes great pains to identify each of the devices it sells with unique (and hard to counterfeit) identifiers (SN, MAC addresses etc.) and can say with a fair amount of certainty where and when each machine was purchased.

It seems that H Biden did leave a laptop with someone with less than stellar ethics who knew a “Roger Stone”, (who appears to be the same “Roger Stone” who received a pardon from Donald Trump in the waning hours of his Presidency). [/baselessSpeculation]

I always found that odd how an abandoned laptop was handled let alone the whole story being just bizarre. One would think after someone dropped it off for repair and the repair shop hadn't heard back from them, they would take efforts to contact the owner. Not this guy, he goes into and spreads copies out of the hard drive like Halloween candy.

 

[SimplyMe]

Didn't Hunter abandon that laptop at the repair shop? Wouldn't that make it the property of the repair shop owner?
Also, wasn't the MSM denying that this laptop even existed, and that it was just a conspiracy theory made up by conservatives???

Perhaps it's Fox News and other conservatives who are owed a lawsuit win (settlement) for defamation. However, it seems that Hunter and his attorney wants to cover themselves by deflecting attention by using psychological projection in the legal system.

It can make them owners of the physical device but not the data on the computer (it depends on the contract the person dropping it off signs -- the fine print at the bottom -- and state laws). Making copies and distributing the data on the computer is likely a criminal act, though somewhat mitigated since it appears he didn't "sell" it (again, the details would depend on state laws). Also, as pointed out, it appears no actions were taken to get the owner to retrieve the computers, making it likely that he could not claim them abandoned.

 

[SimplyMe]

"Lawyers for Hunter Biden are demanding Fox News issue corrections about some of its coverage of the president’s son or risk a defamation lawsuit, according to the Washington Post."

MSN

I found myself laughing at this one because of its potential to backfire. which would be well deserved in my opinion. I guess it does have one big plus on their end, namely that the biggest reason for a lawsuit is the ability to prove damages and if Hunter (I assume) is losing business and suffering from other financial hardship and the people that are canceling the contracts, backing out of business deals etc. are naming what is going on in the news (where Fox is at the center of things) then that most important criteria is likely met.

The problem is there are other considerations such as: if the information is actually true, and if the information is false does it appear to be spread purely for malicious reasons. From what I can tell, Fox is only (or mostly) guilty of reporting factual information on a story is truly newsworthy, when the rest of mainstream media that has a pro-Democratic bias would rather turn a blind eye.

I think you are projecting here, it is unlikely to backfire. At worst, much like Trump, any inconvenient questions would be answered with Hunter refusing to answer based on the 5th Amendment. He can easily answer the questions about the rent paid to his father and the corresponding information on the application without incriminating himself.

Just noticed this story in the news that adds some context for me, but on another issue.


"In the 14-page letter to Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, Biden attorney Abbe Lowell claimed that repair shop shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac unlawfully accessed Hunter’s laptop data and worked with former President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to “weaponize” sordid and incriminating contents on it against Joe Biden."

MSN

www.msn.com

The problem of all this is that public figures do not have the same expectation of privacy (due to their fame) as most citizens. In general, the relatives of politicians are off limits, if they are away from politics and want to live lives far removed from politics then they are good to go. The problem is that is not Hunter Biden. He has associated with his dad not just as a supportive son (like the Obama daughters) but as an adult has gone away on business trips with his father on Air Force one and two and made business connections. Moreover, he nakedly has profited from his father's political affiliations getting lucrative jobs, art deals etc. from the hopes of rich people and foreign politicians and businessmen looking to buy favor with his dad. Furthermore, he likely is the reason behind some political actions concerning Ukraine and China in the past, as well as impeachment efforts from Trump (covering up his business dealings).

I'm not so sure Hunter would be considered a public figure, it would be interesting to see what the courts would decide. I do think a key factor is that Hunter has not attempted to become a public figure, in fact, it would appear that Hunter has consistently tried to remain out of the public eye. I think if Hunter were judged to be a public figure then it would be a net negative, as it would likely make all children of Presidents (or even prominent politicians) public figures -- and make media scrutiny that much worse, not to mention the lies that some outlets would tell if they couldn't be sued without the victim having to prove malice.

 

[Say it aint so]

It can make them owners of the physical device but not the data on the computer (it depends on the contract the person dropping it off signs -- the fine print at the bottom -- and state laws). Making copies and distributing the data on the computer is likely a criminal act, though somewhat mitigated since it appears he didn't "sell" it (again, the details would depend on state laws). Also, as pointed out, it appears no actions were taken to get the owner to retrieve the computers, making it likely that he could not claim them abandoned.

Good point. Personally, I find the laptop repair story just beyond weird. With that said, even if the computer repair man had a claim to the computer because of his preference of abandonment, as you note that does not mean he has claim to it's contents. I mean would it mean he has a right to make copies of content that had SSNs and bank account numbers to disperse?

 

[Aldebaran]

It can make them owners of the physical device but not the data on the computer (it depends on the contract the person dropping it off signs -- the fine print at the bottom -- and state laws). Making copies and distributing the data on the computer is likely a criminal act, though somewhat mitigated since it appears he didn't "sell" it (again, the details would depend on state laws). Also, as pointed out, it appears no actions were taken to get the owner to retrieve the computers, making it likely that he could not claim them abandoned.

Hunter didn't even pay the repair bill, and then never came back for the laptop. That's abandonment.
Also, if a repair shop discovers evidence of illegal activity on someone's computer, they can reveal it, just as a photo processing shop would report photos of young children being sexually exploited.

 

[disciple Clint]

It is good to see that we no longer have anyone posting that the laptop does not exist or that it does not belong to Hunter or that the incriminating information on it is fake. We are making progress, when you run out of excuses it sometimes is just necessary to accept the cold hard facts.

 

[SimplyMe]

Hunter didn't even pay the repair bill, and then never came back for the laptop. That's abandonment.

Again, the standard (again, laws vary between states) is that there must be a reasonable attempt by the store to contact the owner. From what I have seen, no such attempt was made here.

Also, if a repair shop discovers evidence of illegal activity on someone's computer, they can reveal it, just as a photo processing shop would report photos of young children being sexually exploited.

Yes, they can report it to law enforcement; they are not free to release it to others, particularly full copies of the contents of the computer, much of which has no evidence of law breaking. Yes, I'm sure you'll try to claim he released it to a "lawyer" (Giuliani), but the problem with that claim is that Giuliani was not the shop owner's attorney, he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland, etc.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I always found that odd how an abandoned laptop was handled let alone the whole story being just bizarre. One would think after someone dropped it off for repair and the repair shop hadn't heard back from them, they would take efforts to contact the owner. Not this guy, he goes into and spreads copies out of the hard drive like Halloween candy.

Well apparently....the shop owner didn't know who the laptop belonged to. I can understand that. We know how 2019 was....especially at the end.

So when it was booted up to find out who owned it, the shop owner saw incriminating evidence of the son of a political candidate.

He did the only thing he could do....give it to everyone....including the FBI. If he gave it only to the FBI, then they simply would have covered it up (as they did) and buried the secret. If he gave it to just some lawyers or Republicans....it would turn into conspiracy theory nonsense. He gave it to everyone....essentially leaving the country to decide how to sort it out.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well apparently....the shop owner didn't know who the laptop belonged to. I can understand that. We know how 2019 was....especially at the end.

So when it was booted up to find out who owned it, the shop owner saw incriminating evidence of the son of a political candidate.

He did the only thing he could do....give it to everyone....including the FBI. If he gave it only to the FBI, then they simply would have covered it up (as they did) and buried the secret. If he gave it to just some lawyers or Republicans....it would turn into conspiracy theory nonsense. He gave it to everyone....essentially leaving the country to decide how to sort it out.

So what was that paperwork with Hunter Biden's name and signature being shown, to prove it was Hunter's laptop? Or are you saying the business owner was so incompetent, that despite getting the information about who the machine belonged to, he doesn't keep the paperwork with the machine (which typically also includes the work done so he can charge that person for his work)?

And he did not give it to "everyone." While the FBI subpoenaed the computer, the owner kept a copy of the data (which he had no right to) and gave it to Giuliani, and maybe to Bannon (though it may be Giuliani who gave it to Bannon). I've never seen claims that the store owner ever gave the hard drive to anyone else. Instead, it was Giuliani and Bannon, along with the Trump campaign, that tried to get the stories published about the hard drive. I believe the full copy of the hard drive was not released until last year, with people getting the copies from Bannon and Giuliani, not the store owner.

 

[Say it aint so]

Well apparently....the shop owner didn't know who the laptop belonged to. I can understand that. We know how 2019 was....especially at the end.

So when it was booted up to find out who owned it, the shop owner saw incriminating evidence of the son of a political candidate.

He did the only thing he could do....give it to everyone....including the FBI. If he gave it only to the FBI, then they simply would have covered it up (as they did) and buried the secret. If he gave it to just some lawyers or Republicans....it would turn into conspiracy theory nonsense. He gave it to everyone....essentially leaving the country to decide how to sort it out.

Mac Issac:

“My story has been the same (…) When I told it to the FBI in December of 2019, it’s remained the same story. Hunter Biden came into my shop; he came in with three liquid damaged laptops. I explained to him the data recovery process, explained to him the 90-day abandonment procedure, and he signed that document allowing me access to those drives.​

​

Your statement just doesn't add up, specially the part the repairman saw incriminating evidence. As I noted one would think the repairman would at least make an attempt to return the laptop to it's owner. In fact when asked Mac Issac said this:

​

"When a customer doesn't return after 90 days, Mac Isaac says he typically will reach out to them by phone.​

Asked if he called Hunter Biden, Mac Isaac said, "No comment."​

​

I personally think his story is going to unravel if he is sued when having to do a deposition.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So what was that paperwork with Hunter Biden's name and signature being shown, to prove it was Hunter's laptop? Or are you saying the business owner was so incompetent, that despite getting the information about who the machine belonged to, he doesn't keep the paperwork with the machine (which typically also includes the work done so he can charge that person for his work)?

I have no idea what sort of sorting method a "laptop" repair shop uses. I can't imagine it sat in a drawer with a bunch of other laptops.

The turnaround was supposed to be short though. A week or two? It may not have been clearly labeled with the client expected back quickly. Perhaps the client gets the paperwork and he would need it to identify the laptop.

Regardless, I'm not going to blame the shop owner for Hunter's crackhead move. He's the idiot dropping incriminating evidence in the hands of regular people and forgetting about it.

And he did not give it to "everyone." While the FBI subpoenaed the computer, the owner kept a copy of the data (which he had no right to) and gave it to Giuliani, and maybe to Bannon (though it may be Giuliani who gave it to Bannon). I've never seen claims that the store owner ever gave the hard drive to anyone else. Instead, it was Giuliani and Bannon, along with the Trump campaign, that tried to get the stories published about the hard drive. I believe the full copy of the hard drive was not released until last year, with people getting the copies from Bannon and Giuliani, not the store owner.

Well typically you wouldn't want to give it to everyone. However when we're talking about the sort of people who can have you jailed or Epsteined at any time....you would be a moron not to keep a copy and distribute several others. That's why this guy didn't get dropped off a bridge somewhere. He's smart.

 

[Aldebaran]

Again, the standard (again, laws vary between states) is that there must be a reasonable attempt by the store to contact the owner. From what I have seen, no such attempt was made here.


Yes, they can report it to law enforcement; they are not free to release it to others, particularly full copies of the contents of the computer, much of which has no evidence of law breaking. Yes, I'm sure you'll try to claim he released it to a "lawyer" (Giuliani), but the problem with that claim is that Giuliani was not the shop owner's attorney, he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland, etc.

He tried contacting Hunter to get the laptop(s) after 90 days. Hunter Biden email story: Computer repair store owner describes handing over laptop to FBI