“That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable”
Again I am not aware of the source situation of the files.
However, no, it’s not something wou need enable.
Microsoft outlook, and Mail, both save to disk unless you turn it off.

That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app. If it was, I could’ve accessed my emails even while offline, but I could not.

Also, on a somewhat related note, while I can’t remember off the top of my head exactly when the emails were allegedly sent, keep in mind the emails in question were—at a minimum—4 years old by the time this laptop would have ended up at the repair shop, likely even older (assuming they’re authentic). Most companies will have everyone clean out their inboxes on a regular basis (usually 1-4 years), not just for security reasons but also for legal reasons, unless they are explicitly told to retain that information for a pending or current lawsuit, criminal charge, or investigation. And these were particularly incriminating emails, too, and they were time-sensitive on top of that, so there was all the more reason to delete them.

And it’s not like Hunter wouldn’t have known that they would have been problematic. Even before Biden ran for VP, while Hunter was a lobbyist, lots of people alleged that Hunter was using his father as a way to increase his influence or that Biden made biased decisions in favor of whatever or whomever Hunter was lobbying on behalf of. They even took active steps to try to address those concerns, and they took some of those steps before any allegations of impropriety ever came up. Even if those allegations were indeed true, or became true later on, Hunter would have known very well that he should do his best to avoid making it appear as those there was anything shady going on in that regard, and certainly wouldn’t be so careless as to retain that kind of evidence for so long.

So why were those emails still on the laptop more than four years later?

“ Still not something I would say is advisable”
Nor I. But I’ve worked with people who went fishing.
Below me,l, under me, I don’t take it. Nuke the drive. Start over.
But I’ve worked under companies that license fish. I never stayed long when I became aware of it.
It’s one of the many places where my idea of private property works out better for general society.
Not my data. BC wipe.
Every tech has looked once, even I. Without permission.
It’s literally something everyone will try ~once~.
But for some… it’s a thrill. They’re sick and need help. But it’s still legal in most cases of a situation such as in discussion.

First, re: license-fishing, which is the least bad reason you’ve given thus far—why would that require checking emails? And why wouldn’t you use search terms to narrow down the search to ones likely to yield licenses. Plus, again, this email was over four years old at the time (allegedly). If someone has an inbox containing emails that old (especially ones that are incriminating or have no good reason to be retained for so long, both of which are true for these emails), that’s a lot of emails to go through, so, again, one would expect some sort of filter to be used.

Second, and more importantly, I again wouldn’t trust that information disseminated by such a person—particularly one who has a motive for wanting to make the victim look bad—was authentic and unmodified.

If we were discussing someone whose job (official or not) is to test security measures, that would be one thing, but that’s not the case here.

My point over all is unlikely? Yes. Improbable? No

I don’t think you know what “improbable” means… If something is unlikely, it is also—pretty much by definition—improbable. Perhaps you meant “implausible”?

Regarding the citations, thank you for providing links to support your claims. I really appreciate it. There are some problems, though.

Re: the citation on Hunter saying the laptop could be his, you missed an important detail:

“Of course, certainly,” Biden replied. “There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me. It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me.”

So, not exactly great support for your claim that he actually dropped it off and simply forgot about it. Kind of the opposite, actually. He also never said, “I don’t recall,” or anything like that in that story.

Now, he may not be being entirely truthful, but this certainly isn’t the sort of admission that bolsters your claim.

Additionally, as I’ve already pointed out, neither the repairman nor Giuliani definitively identified the person who dropped off the laptop at the repair shop as Hunter. They have claimed that both the laptop and the emails were his, but they never claimed that the guy who dropped it off to begin with was him. They didn’t say it wasn’t Hunter, but they didn’t say it was either. So, really, the story doesn’t even require that Hunter was ever in that area to begin with.

Now, I understand why you would be trying to justify that it was him, as it adds another potentially problematic link in the chain of custody, but given how problematic the existing links are, it doesn’t matter that much whether it was Hunter>repairman>Rudy or Hunter>?>repairman>Rudy.

Re: the tarmac, Loretta Lynch wasn’t AG or even in the DOJ in any capacity when the laptop story allegedly took place. It was William Barr, who was definitely a Trump supporter, who was AG at the time. So, even if one could have reasonably doubted federal law enforcement under the Obama administration, that is irrelevant here, where the events were far more recent.

Speaking of, not only did the Tarmac story take place four years before the laptop story, it also was reported on soon after the story took place, so saying it was “not that long ago” isn’t quite accurate. While the particular article you cite was written in 2020, that wasn’t because they just found out about it or had just uncovered any new information about the event or anything. It was because the guy who first broke the story—a Christopher Sign who worked for the people publishing this article—had just died. And it also makes it clear that the story became public years ago, as it says not only did the events occur in 2016, but also that it hurt Hillary’s election chances. When the laptop story took place, Biden was the one running for President.

While I suppose it’s technically possible that the guy had gained some distrust of federal law enforcement from that story, it doesn’t explain his actions in the laptop story, particularly given that that story wasn’t new at the time and happened under very different leadership.

“because they only cared about taking out Biden.”
Not supporting it. But makes sense. Politicians suck.

I won’t deny that, but the problem is that—with such clear improper motivations behind it and such, and given the lack of any supporting evidence or any way we could possibly verify the authenticity of either the laptop or the emails—it becomes entirely plausible—even likely—that the emails were tampered with or falsified or that the laptop was never Hunter’s to begin with.

Also, Rudy was once a politician, sure (though, to my knowledge, he isn’t one any longer and hasn’t been for a while), but the repairman was not, so I don’t see the relevance of the “Politicians suck,” comment. If anything, it only bolsters my point.

And given how fast anti-Trump gets covered with no actual personal fact checking, […]

Aside from the Steele dossier being covered by Buzzfeed and then other covering their coverage and the alleged pee-pee tape—which was basically mentioned at most once each by any serious news sources and mostly mentioned in humor rather than seriously since then—I am unaware of that being the case. Plus, those were presented as claims, not evidence of claims. Major news sources had already covered the underlying allegations of the laptop story—that Hunter was helping people get access to Biden—long before the laptop story came out.

I also already mentioned several other distinctions between the anti-Trump coverage and the laptop story. For example, the laptop story could easily be discredited with just a modicum of research, while the anti-Trump stories could not and—in the case of the pee-pee tapes—were likely unfalsifiable. They weren’t immediately proven wrong with evidence after they came out, either.

[…] this story being completely buried… shows partnership considerations.

“Partnership considerations”? Are you suggesting that the media colluded to bury the story? When has that ever happened?

I’m not saying MSM aren’t biased or are trustworthy or anything like that—that’s a whole ‘nother issue—or that any mass media—including MSM—hasn’t previously buried stories for selfish reasons or because they were paid off or something—something that definitely has happened—or that the government has never exercised its influence to silence the media—which is both a separate issue and would make no sense for the Trump administration to be doing—because those aren’t what you’re alleging here (or at least not the major thing you’re claiming). You’re alleging that every MSM source—along with other news media—colluded together to bury this story.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. That is unsupported by your other claims or any other known information (so it goes against Hitchen’s Razor), it goes against Hanlon’s Razor as it alleges malicious intent behind not covering the story despite the existence of other equally plausible explanations that would still go along with your other claims that don’t require malicious intent (like unconscious bias, being incompetent or lax with regards to fact-checking outside of an election year, or—rightly or wrongly—personally finding the anti-Trump stuff more plausible or more serious than the laptop story), it goes against Occam’s Razor as it adds multiple unneeded assumptions that have not been shown to be demonstrated, not to mention the other problems it shares with any conspiracy theory—too many people involved but no leaks from anyone involved, among others.

Look, even if I grant that MSM buried the story for invalid or improper reasons and that they were handling it unfairly compared to anti-Trump stories, it is entirely plausible—and far more likely—that they did so completely independently from each other. Assuming there were any partnership considerations involved is entirely unwarranted here.