In everyday-terms, this is what is known as a "COVER-UP".

And regardless of the source, what if it turns out that this computer & its hard-drive IS Hunter Biden's, and if the alleged contents -- emails, photos, other items -- ARE Hunter Biden's and have NOT been "doctored" by outside sources? What if it turns out that the allegations of POSSIBLE CRIMINAL (or at least HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE) ACTIVITY -- based on this computer & its contents -- by Hunter and Joe Biden, are TRUE? Shouldn't those possibilities AT LEAST BE INVESTIGATED?

And shouldn't those possibilities be investigated BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 3rd ELECTION?

Shouldn't THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have the CHANCE of SEEING FOR THEMSELVES what the NY Post reported on this issue? Shouldn't the American people be permitted to SEE THE EVIDENCE or at least to KNOW ABOUT IT?

By contrast, for almost 4 years now, the mass media -- including the "tech giants" -- such as Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter -- not to also mention the Democrat Party and especially its leaders -- have RELENTLESSLY HAMMERED the Trump Administration not only for EVERYTHING large and small but also for IMAGINED things "AT THE DROP OF A HAT".

So NOW the mass media and those "tech giants" that I mentioned -- which now seem to BLATANTLY PARTISAN and walking in lockstep with the Democrat Party -- are, WITHOUT ANY SEMBLANCE OF OBJECTIVITY, ACTING AS THE BIDENS' PROTECTORS?

As a journalist, I always try my best to be OBJECTIVE in my reporting, and to OBJECTIVELY report the relevant CONTEXTS of the story, and to NOT insert my OWN theories as to a NEWS story's alleged FACTS. But -- in addition -- the FIRST duty is to REPORT THE STORY, RATHER THAN CENSOR IT.

How do you know? What facts in support of your contention can you present to us?

maypat --

Seems to me that you are incorrect -- or are selectively "parsing words" -- in your comment about whether or not Hillary was "accused".

Certainly she was ACCUSED by a huge segment of the American public, AND by various legal scholars, (a) of having violated Federal law and (b) of having violated Federal (including State Dep't.) Regulations & Standards of Operation and (c) of having violated proper standards of Ethics -- and also (d) of having violated basic standards of CARE regarding her handling of the emails-issue. And, as to the latter point, perhaps you will recall, then-Director of the FBI, James Comey, famously ACCUSED -- and charged -- Hillary with having acted with EXTREME CARELESSNESS in that affair.

No, maypat, Hillary was definitely ACCUSED of various alleged emails-issue malfeasances, but she was not officially BROUGHT UP ON FEDERAL CHARGES.

So Hillary "gets away with" having deleted (according to reports) some 30,000 emails -- emails that she allegedly made while she was still Secretary of State (and which were deleted DESPITE A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA TO HAND OVER ALL SUCH EMAILS) -- and NOW we have Gina Haspell, who reportedly did the SAME KIND OF THING in allegedly DESTROYING OFFICIAL EVIDENCE of her OFFICIAL (and allegedly HUMAN-TORTURE BASED) actions WHILE IN OFFICE, ALSO (so far) "getting away with it" AND BEING REWARDED WITH an offer of THE TOP POSITION IN THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

So what ELSE is new?

Even putting aside, for the the moment, the alleged merits or demerits of the idea of torturing a person in order to -- PRESUMABLY -- extract valid information from that person, what does the nomination of someone who IN HER OFFICIAL POSITION allegedly DESTROYED OFFICIAL (and possibly incriminating?) EVIDENCE say about the nominater's -- in this case Trump's:

-- (a) respect for PRINCIPLE -- such as, why should Hillary be ACCUSED for her similar actions but Ms. Haspell should be REWARDED for much the SAME kind of actions (but in this case also TORTURE-connected)?, and:

-- (b) respect for ETHICS AND LAW -- such as, if it can be argued that HILLARY's actions, regarding those emails, were in violation of ETHICS AND LAW, why aren't those SAME STANDARDS of ETHICS AND LAW being NOT APPLIED in Ms. HASPELL'S case?

To "Kratoklastes" --

Although I do not agree with the whole of your comment, and I wish that your comment had had more balance -- which, as I see it, to some degree it lacks -– it does seem to me that you've made some illuminating points worth considering.

That being said:

You disagree with a key premise that I offered, i.e., that of "Evil" being "on the march". I completely disagree with your contention on that point. I.e., you state as follows:

"You proceed from a false premise - namely, that "evil is on the march", which indicates that you think that there is an expansionist Islamic movement with territorial aspirations that extend beyond the regions of the participants. Nothing could be further from the truth."

In your above statement -- which, by the way, makes assumptions that I did not state -- I am taken aback by what appears to be your failure to even take note of the savagery being inflicted by ISIS (and/or related agencies such as Boko Haram et al) who, as per numerous news reports from around the globe, are not only geographically and culturally by their own stated policies expansionist, but are seeking that expansion of dominion by -- also as a matter of policy -- horrific b3/he@d-ings and croo/c!fi/xions of innocents, sexual enslavement of girls and (if they're "young enough") women, and all in the name of (or so they claim) establishing a global cal/!-f@yte.

How you, in your above comment, apparently take zero recognition of those facts, and, in so doing, also take ME to task for my having suggested a general scenario based on the concept of "Evil on the march", is beyond me.

As to "religion" being the only -- or even the prime -- driving-force propelling ISIS et al to do these things, that is a whole other -- and debatable -- issue.

IMO: Overly simplistic hypothesis. Maybe it APPEARS to apply for the moment -- but the reasons (plural!) that it seems that IS, or ISIS, or whatever their chosen name of the moment may be, have purportedly "not yet" attacked or bea-he@d+ed a Swiss citizen (within Switzerland) is, IMO, not just because Switzerland allegedly "minds its own business", but is due to a COMPLEX of reasons. And, I submit, this purported "safety" of the Swiss -- and the Swiss nation -- is ONLY FOR THE MOMENT.

Plus, there is THIS factor: When "Evil is on the march", and Evil is absolutely DETERMINED to wipe out all that is in its path, how safe can any potential victim be, by simply declaring, with an air of detached insouciance, "Well, Mr. Evil, sir, I happen to be ABOVE all this, so I will just complacently turn my back and let you go about your business destroying everyone else you say must be destroyed -- and I'm sure that you will consequently be so kind as to not destroy ME when, at some point and for reasons that I cannot at the moment seem to imagine, you determine that it is MY turn to be destroyed. After all, although I do happen to represent everything that you say you utterly despise, surely you will honor what I now propose as our Gentlemen's Agreement?"

Like the proverbial frog who is too stupid to jump out of a pot of water that gradually, but all too soon, will -- to the frog's dumb surprise -- come to a boil, I would also wonder how long would Switzerland -- according to the above article's hypothetical reasoning -- be safe from attack after any surrounding defenses have been breached -- or destroyed -- by that attacker?

Of course, there is an additional possible angle on that conundrum: Suppose, in the above example, that "you" (such as the Swiss financial system) are FILTHY RICH. In such a situation, might it be at all feasible that if you say to your potential attacker, "Pssst! By the way, how about if we MAKE A DEAL: I secretly pay you ALL THE FINANCIAL WEALTH THAT YOU'VE EVER DREAMED OF -- AND I PROTECT YOU, via the POWERHOUSE that I am in world financial affairs, and GIVE YOU ALL THE ECONOMIC INFLUENCE THAT YOU WANT -- and, in return, you promise to not cut off my head?"

Of course I've exaggerated that scenario's elements, for effect. But, hmmm, could something even REMOTELY akin to that scenario possibly be in the minds of the players on either side of this equation, as they weigh the odds of how to handle the situation?

(EDITING-NOTE: For some reason, it seems that this Comments-Page insists on tailing my above comment with the title of one of my recent comments or one of my posts at my protonius.wordpress.com blog -- I don't know why. Sorry about that.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who may be interested, I've found, via an internet-search on this topic, a different email-address that's said to be to Major General Jeffrey Buchanan, who is listed there as the convening authority for Manning's court-martial:

jeffrey.s.buchanan@us.army.mil

Source is an article, about this situation, at:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/featured/urgent-cal...

Recommendation:

For an intriguing (though presumably fictional) insight into the kind of the dealings that may, in part, be going on "behind the scenes" in this whole affair, see the 1970 spy-thriller "THE KREMLIN LETTER", starring Richard Boone as the head of the CIA, and Max von Sydow as the head of the KGB. Very revealing. (Some details: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065950 ).

Senator Frank Church's warning should be a clarion call for all Americans (and all people of this world) to take action -- via politics, the media, etcetera -- to stop this trend toward total invasion of our privacy TODAY. Otherwise, if this freedoms-destructive juggernaut is allowed to continue racing -- with ever increasing capability and speed --along its current path, then -- as Senator Church so perceptively warned -- we may quickly pass the "point of no return". And then?

IMO: Appalling violations of law and ethics and morality by the Court and its officers. Most disgusting of all is how this judge simply IGNORED the woman's complaint and plea and ALLOWED this massive injustice -- including the immediately-following INCARCERATION of the woman -- to continue.

And it then took, what, SIX MONTHS for an "investigation" to be carried out? Even with this OFFICIAL COURT VIDEO in hand? And even then, that "investigation" didn't even MENTION (let alone CHARGE) the judge?

So, what is wrong with this picture? What does it say about a system that allows, even condones, such outrageous (and illegal etcetera) behavior by that system?