Doesn’t anyone else think it’s disgraceful that the private contents, however salubrious, of a lap top have been released without permission to the gaze of all and sundry? If there is criminal activity depicted there which needs to be used as evidence the contents ought to have remained with the legal authorities. Releasing them could compromise future trials.

All because the owner happens to be the son of a US President who is a rival to their own choice. There would be no interest otherwise.

When we have no idea whether the images receiving the most attention have been photoshopped to tell the desired narrative. It leaves a very nasty taste.

This is, for me, even worse than some of the behaviour depicted on the lap top but without a sliver of an excuse for it. It’s disgusting.

Doesn’t anyone else think it’s disgraceful that the private contents, however salubrious, of a lap top have been released without permission to the gaze of all and sundry? If there is criminal activity depicted there which needs to be used as evidence the contents ought to have remained with the legal authorities. Releasing them could compromise future trials.

All because the owner happens to be the son of a US President who is a rival to their own choice. There would be no interest otherwise.

When we have no idea whether the images receiving the most attention have been photoshopped to tell the desired narrative. It leaves a very nasty taste.

This is, for me, even worse than some of the behaviour depicted on the lap top but without a sliver of an excuse for it. It’s disgusting.

But according to the contract he signed the laptop and it's content became the shops property if not redeemed within the agreed period. Ethics aside he could have avoided the whole issue if he'd paid up on time. Rightly or wrongly that's the law
in Delaware.

I can understand the laptop itself, including the hard drive, becoming the property of the repair shop in these circumstances. My understanding is that after the repair shop owner suspected there were incriminating things on it he made a copy, or several copies, which found their way to Bannon and Guiliani who cooked up a scheme to link it to Joe Biden. The FBI got wind of this, seized the laptop and retained it as evidence.

Is it legal to copy and distribute private information in this way, even if the physical media it is on has passed to another? You would need to be a lawyer to answer that.

There is no way of knowing whether the copies have been tampered with. The FBI confirmed the laptop is genuine but quite correctly not commented on its contents. Nor would they comment on anything being published from alleged copies.

It’s certainly unethical. It might be illegal. It is also disgraceful behaviour which I am afraid is typical of the Trump campaign which has scant regard for either democracy and the rule of law, or of decency.

Me too Cryrst. I live in Scotland and I've never met anyone here who would ever describe themselves as British.

When should I expect her?