So he encouraged a protest.  He told his followers to march to the capitol.

If a protest escalates into a riot everyone who encourages that protest should be punished?  Let's see how many of our esteemed representatives and senators and other elected officials encouraged BLM and Antifa protests that escalated in the burning of Portland, Seattle, Chicago, NY, and on and on.  They should also be impeached and punished?

Trump did not say storm the Capitol.  He said march to the Capitol.  So all marches to the Capitol should be banned just in case they get out of control?  And then there's the representatives and senators who encouraged storming the Senate during the Kavenaugh hearings.  They should also be impeached and punished?

Let's look at the question: "Do you support or oppose the protesters who broke into the U.S. Capitol"  Of course most people will say they oppose this.  Just like most people will say that they oppose protesters burning Portland, Seattle, and on and on.

At least fifty-seven percent of Americans are idiots.  And I'm not sure about the rest.

More like Al Baghdadi who radicalizes the masses by convincing them that their world is slipping away from them and then giving them a group to blame.  Trump has fed them lies and then encouraged them to march on the capital and to be strong to win.  This is right out of the ISIS playbook and it works beautifully.  I used to think that what happened in Germany under Hitler couldn't happen here.  I was wrong.  I used to think we were better than Islamist radicals because out people were more patriotic and had a much better standard of living.  Again, I was wrong.

Sigh. That’s “not even wrong.” Consider:
When one financial institution needs to communicate over public networks with another such institute, they use an agreed upon process to insure the other end is who it claims to be (i.e. avoid someone intercepting and pretending to be the destination) before they exchange sensitive information. This is known as authentication (encryption is the process of hiding the exchanged information from eavesdroppers. You can authenticate without encrypting or encrypt without authenticating, but often both are done.) Email uses the same authentication protocols (this is one case where encryption was not traditionally done, though now TLS is used to encrypt.) If the sequence of bits needed to fake the authentication could be trivially created from whole cloth, the internet would cease to exist as a reliable communication medium.

So your objection is technically wrong. Nice try, counselor.

Lastly and least importantly, I have some modest expertise in this area, as I was the sole author of a product to test TLS 1.2, a version of the primary protocol used to secure web communication:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150814144639/http://iwl.com/protocol-testing/ssl-tls (Alas there aren’t a lot of customers for such a product and we never recouped development costs, so after I retired the company eventually stopped trying to sell it.)

I only responded to set the record straight on the establishment of authenticity of the email contents. I’ll let others who may be more familiar with the contents take a stab at answering your last questions.

What you are talking about is a dynamic process.  This apparently involves emails that has sat in a laptop for years before allegedly being "discovered".  Some may be authenticated if you can obtain other copies of the email.  But is a static thing, an email is just a file.  There is no imprimatur by god emblazoned on the file to prove that it is the real deal.  And just because you can authenticate it, you then have to figure out what it means before using it as evidence.  The justice department run by Trump's picked lap dog apparently brought no charges related to anything to do with Joe Biden.  In fact, even Hunter's business seemed to only merit investigation to the extent that there might be tax fraud.  That investigation is ongoing.

The most likely explanation is that Hunter Biden used his position as the son of the VP to leverage that to make money.  A bit unethical IMO, but he is not the first offspring of someone famous to do that.  In itself, it is not illegal.

It’s a violation of the Civil Rights Act, denial of service based on creed.  These guys just opened themselves up to a massive lawsuit.  This is something the Supreme Court will uphold, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

But I’m sure you guys already knew that and are smart enough to press it.

Bored on my way to a vacation.

Con Law 101:  The Bill of Rights and amendments thereto do not apply to private enterprises.

Yes sweetheart I do take issue with some of those programs.  And no I am not going to waste my time defining to you what the liberal agenda is.  I've got much better things to do than engage in a trite back and forth with a liberal on the internet.

As for my original comment, I will expect beers from my conservative counterparts if there is a thread of truth to what I say......and I will seek you out!

IOW, you have no coherent definition other than your mindless tribalism uses it to mean anyone who don't agree with your angry, narrow-mindedness.  Got it!

The authenticity of some of its emails appears to have been established: when you have the entire original emails (meaning all the headers) from the machine’s email storage, then if the email providers involved were using current standards, it is possible to authenticate whether an email was sent at the claimed time from the claimed source to the claimed destination with the claimed message content. This is because such systems add things called DKIM and ARC headers that allow messages to be authenticated manually at a later date.

In fact a security expert did run a DKIM authentication check on one or more emails and verified them. This has been acknowledged by Hunter Biden defenders who nevertheless claim that it is possible someone could have created both accounts back in 2015 (remember the timestamps are also authenticated) with the objective of smearing the Bidens at some later date like 2019.

You can do a web search on keywords “hunter biden emails and dkim” for various stories. Here’s one in his defense:
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/11/fact-check-what-dkim-verification-of-Hunter-Biden-email-proves-and-what-it-doesn't.html

Here are some technical backgrounders on DKIM and ARC:
https://www.dmarcanalyzer.com/dkim/dkim-signature/
https://postmarkapp.com/blog/what-is-arc-or-authenticated-received-chain

P.S. Most email client programs allow you to view all the headers of an email. It is worthwhile just for personal edification to take a look. The number of headers is quite mind-numbing at times. Check to see if any headers have DKIM or ARC in their names.

Anything coded on a hard drive in 1's and 0's can be created out of whole cloth.  They fact that this laptop came through Guiliani makes it suspect to begin with.  Apparently the FBI has looked at the laptop and the emails and have done nothing more about them with respect to anything Hunter might have done that implicated Joe.

But lets assume for sake of argument that it really was Hunter's laptop and there are genuine emails in it.  What do they prove against Joe?  Got any examples?

No therapy needed here sweetheart.  Liberalism is a disgusting repulsive disease, and anyone who thinks the liberal agenda has anything to do with American values and principles is fucking clueless.  I wish more people would take the time to inform themselves.

So you hate all these liberal programs:

Medicare
Social Security
Civil Rights Acts
Various welfare programs
Depression era work programs

Just to name a few big ones.

Perhaps you need to define what you think the "liberal agenda" is.

Can anyone explain this?

You mean the BS tweet, or whatever it is?