Even the Clinton team tried to say the Wikileaks were doctored, despite the vast majority of them having a DKIM signature confirming their authenticity.
The ball is in EMA’s field now: they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored.
There’s pretty damning information in there, it’s in their interest to demonstrate it’s false.
The question wasn't if they were victims or not though. They are. The question is about the validity of data and questioning is just fine.
You might not have seen anything useful in what was presented but it doesn't mean someone else can't. Comparing it to "5G vaccines" to discredit the parents point isn't the right way to challenge their interpretation.
> The question is about the validity of data and questioning is just fine.
Are you going to question every "data leak" and smear campaign that comes from questionable sources (I think this leak was first published on Rutor - not the first time Russia does something like that)?
> it doesn't mean someone else can't
True, that's what the article addresses. And as you see it's making technical questions not implying they're hiding something.
Even the Clinton team tried to say the Wikileaks were doctored, despite the vast majority of them having a DKIM signature confirming their authenticity.
The ball is in EMA’s field now: they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored.
There’s pretty damning information in there, it’s in their interest to demonstrate it’s false.