analyze what he’s testifying to. How can he verify that that was hunter biden’s information? What is “tampering” in this case? Could he verify the data was on the laptop before it went into the store? No. Can he verify the data was on the laptop between the store and Giuliani? No. He has nothing to compare it to. He can only verify that the data wasn’t tampered with. This does not mean information wasn’t added. It can only verify that information on there showed no evidence of being MODIFIED. The devil is in the details here.

analyze what he’s testifying to. How can he verify that that was hunter biden’s information?
What is “tampering” in this case?
Could he verify the data was on the laptop before it went into the store?
No.
Can he verify the data was on the laptop between the store and Giuliani?
No.
He has nothing to compare it to. He can only verify that the data wasn’t tampered with.
This does not mean information wasn’t added. It can only verify that information on there showed no evidence of being MODIFIED.
The devil is in the details here.

I’ve seen a LOT of “computer cyber security expert” bullshitters with great resumes through the years.
They simply have to wow a judge and jury and that’s not hard to do as few of them are computer experts that can say otherwise and most lawyers aren’t either.
I’ll be curious how because at first blush, it looks like a case where every word he said in his assertion is justifiable SOMEHOW — but easily broken.
Noticing how he mentions not having access to external sources to verify; that’s one of his “get out of trouble” lines and he does it by OFFERING his service if needed.
In short, he doesn’t have external verification. But if he’s asked to verify what’s on there, and finds it on there, he will. Details.

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


one + = 4

Leave a Reply