Trump's under the radar, batshyte crazy reference to Crowdstrike.

Repeated abuses of power and illegal acts including ongoing obstruction by blocking congressional investigations by ordering that witnesses called by the House defy subpoenas.

 

All fake news.

 

I can't help noticing you use that phrase a lot. Doing so makes it clear you can't refute press accounts but rather rely on one of Don's most destructive and disingenuous memes to hide from their content.

 

No, I think MolonLabe2009 uses the phrase fake news a lot because there is so much of it.

 

It must be comforting to know you can invoke the "fake news" meme any time you are incapable of refuting a news report that's damaging to the Liar-in-Chief.............who spews more lies in a day than most media outlets make mistakes in 6 months.

 

How is it possible to refute claims and allegations based on unnamed unidentified anonymous sources?????

 

How is it possible to call something fake news if you don't know if it's true or not?

 

How can you call something real news when it's based on unnamed unidentified anonymous sources?????

 

Because multiple, trusted sources the authors are familiar with are required before an article goes to print.

What you do is reflexively call anything harmful to Mafia Don "fake news" without a shred of evidence to back up your claim. IOW you do just what our stubby fingered POTUS wants you to do.........believe the guy who lies all the time.

 

LMFAO!

Right.

 

Here's your chance. Factually refute anything in the following sentence............Repeated abuses of power and illegal acts including ongoing obstruction by blocking congressional investigations by ordering that witnesses called by the House defy subpoenas.

 

Here's your chance. Factually prove anything in the following sentence............Repeated abuses of power and illegal acts including ongoing obstruction by blocking congressional investigations by ordering that witnesses called by the House defy subpoenas.

 

Nothing to be gained by examining they physical server. Not like the hacker would leave fingerprints on a Datacenter Server Forest.

They haven't said that the Moon Landing is indisputable either. It's indisputable in the sense that nobody with a basic understanding of how I.T. systems works (or physics, in the case of the Moon Landing) would dispute them. From the point of view of disputing them just for the sake of disputing them... anybody could deny even.... gravity

Actually, looking at 1s and 0s would be more involved than forensic analysis actually is. What I'm saying is that they are the same 1s and 0s, no matter who looks at them (FBI or Crowdstrike) or when (the day after the hacking or 6 months later), or where they happen to be looking at them (the physical server or an exact copy). I have done the same kind of analysis forensic analysts do. Not for forensic purposes, but for I.T. security. Same process.