If these are private companies they may not have had proper clearance to classify us secrets. My big question; does a copied hard drive contain "deleted" information? My understanding of file retrieval is that deleted files usually won't copy to a new drive, even if they are cloned. Not saying it's impossible, but many questions on the table. The original hard drive is incriminating enough IMO
You have to wonder about chain of custody in this and how legal some evidence is. Originally it was a random computer repairman who never saw for sure it was Hunter who dropped it off, no security footage, he was just given a name. So then he supposedly has a laptop owned by Hunter and made copies for the FBI and Rudy. Then Rudy supposedly made multiple copies for multiple people. There's no strict chain of custody to know that all people have the same copies or that someone didn't add things to the laptop of their own fabrication at any of these points. I'm just saying that I doubt anything on this laptop could be legal evidence ever because there's just too many chain of custody questions, all the way to the beginning where we don't even know where or how this laptop ended up at the repair shop. There's a lot of potential questions that would need answered for normies to believe some of this stuff, or for these things being spread to be used in a court of law.
Yes! You have to wonder why someone would put obviously incriminating evidence of themself on their own laptop! It seems more like a large collection of incriminating evidence was all gathered and put on a single laptop, to be "accidentally" discovered. This may be the biggest indication of "white hats" at work behind the scenes, out there.
If these are private companies they may not have had proper clearance to classify us secrets. My big question; does a copied hard drive contain "deleted" information? My understanding of file retrieval is that deleted files usually won't copy to a new drive, even if they are cloned. Not saying it's impossible, but many questions on the table. The original hard drive is incriminating enough IMO
You have to wonder about chain of custody in this and how legal some evidence is. Originally it was a random computer repairman who never saw for sure it was Hunter who dropped it off, no security footage, he was just given a name. So then he supposedly has a laptop owned by Hunter and made copies for the FBI and Rudy. Then Rudy supposedly made multiple copies for multiple people. There's no strict chain of custody to know that all people have the same copies or that someone didn't add things to the laptop of their own fabrication at any of these points. I'm just saying that I doubt anything on this laptop could be legal evidence ever because there's just too many chain of custody questions, all the way to the beginning where we don't even know where or how this laptop ended up at the repair shop. There's a lot of potential questions that would need answered for normies to believe some of this stuff, or for these things being spread to be used in a court of law.
Yes! You have to wonder why someone would put obviously incriminating evidence of themself on their own laptop! It seems more like a large collection of incriminating evidence was all gathered and put on a single laptop, to be "accidentally" discovered. This may be the biggest indication of "white hats" at work behind the scenes, out there.