Mueller's Investigative Team Members Claimed To Have 'Accidentally Wiped' Phones (twitter.com) 301
An anonymous reader writes: Newly released DOJ records show that multiple top members of Mueller's investigative team claimed to have "accidentally wiped" at least 15 phones used during the anti-Trump investigation after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices to be handed over.
Happy accidents! (Score:3)
"Oh fuck!" Jones shouts as the phone he is tanked with cracking goes up in flames.
"Dammit Jones, that's the fifteenth one today."
These are not bright people, and things got out of hand.
Well (Score:2)
something something something china
something something something russia
You forgot the most important one! (Score:2)
Something, Something, Something, Dark Side
Followed by
Thank you, Ted. That was the joke.
Wiped, like, with a cloth? (Score:2)
This was obviously a Trump administration decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, Barr's DOJ found nothing to incriminate Strzok or any other democrat, so they wiped the phones, released the information that the phones were wiped, and let the wingnuts make their own deranged conclusions.
So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Obviously, Barr's DOJ found nothing to incriminate Strzok or any other democrat, so they wiped the phones, released the information that the phones were wiped, and let the wingnuts make their own deranged conclusions.
You're alleging that Barr, or an underling at his direction, wiped all those Mueller team phones. THEN he leaked it to the press, just to make them look bad.
You are, in short, alleging a conspiracy by the Attorney General to make it appear as if Mueller's team deleted that evidence. Do I have that right?
Re: (Score:2)
You sure do bud. Don't even pretend to be surprised. This would not be, by far, the worst Barr has done. Fucking criminals, con men, and anti-democratic authoritarians, the lot of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, should clarify. The goal is not necessarily to make Mueller look bad. It's to be able to maintain the narrative that Strzok et. al. are out to get Trump.
The OIG requested the phones, not Barr (Score:2)
> Obviously, Barr's DOJ found nothing to incriminate Strzok or any other democrat, so they wiped the phones, released the information that the phones were wiped, and let the wingnuts make their own deranged conclusions.
And when did Barr have the phones, exactly? This happened when they were asked to turn them over to the OIG, not the DoJ.
But thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
For crying out loud, I'm not saying Barr did it personally, he (or Trump, or someone in Trump';s administration) just had people do it. OIG is still executive branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, Barr's DOJ found nothing to incriminate Strzok or any other democrat, so they wiped the phones, released the information that the phones were wiped, and let the wingnuts make their own deranged conclusions.
I just want to say your username is lovely for this kind of post!
Wiped? (Score:3)
What? Like with a cloth or something?
There's nothing here (Score:5, Informative)
Did anyone read the DOJ records?
It sounds like a bunch of people followed the procedures they were given. When they left, they turned in their phones. An officer reviewed the phones to be sure there was no confidential or classified information on them. After they were reviewed they were turned in for reassignment and completely wiped (reset to factory settings) before reassignment for other people. Only later did someone (Guilliani) show up complaining they had wiped phones and "destroyed evidence". If you read the file, it's a bunch of people saying, "Um, we did what we were supposed to do. What's the problem?"
Re: (Score:3)
And some accidental wipes from too many unvalid unlock attempts. Really boring stuff. Does somebody at /. owe the admin friendly politicized DOJ a favour? ;)
Re: There's nothing here (Score:3)
Except that there was the email 7/13 at about 3pm saying clearly "Don't delete texts"?
It's pretty clear from Strzok, as well as the dismissal of the Flynn case, that there were serious political shenanigans going on, no matter the "what? We're never political..." protestations to the contrary. /utterly unsurprised that phones were wiped, it being Strzoks idiotic and careless texting that revealed it in the first place
"anti-Trump investigation" ... (Score:2)
And the problem is... ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes...so that you don't have to read the bare FOIA docs, you can just read and believe some post which claims thing of which there is no actual evidence of in the docs. You know, kinda like how you don't need to read the Mueller report...Barr will just sum it up for you.
Trump family member: Trump is abusive and ignorant (Score:2)
Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man [amazon.com]
by Mary L. Trump.
Mary L. Trump is "a trained clinical psychologist and Donald's only niece..."
Quotes: "She describes a nightmare of traumas, destructive relationships, and a tragic combination of neglect and abuse. She explains how specific events and general family patterns created the damaged man who currently occupies the Oval Office..."
"... her uncle became the man who now threatens the
You call it "accidental wiping" (Score:2)
I call it "obstruction of justice".
How about we accidentally jail you?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And then "accidentally" forget to ever set them free again.
What a coincidence (Score:2)
Pretty much the entire team lost or wiped their phones by "accident or inadvertently". It's amazing how careless they were. Destroying the evidence and public records that could be used to uncover their work. It's almost as if the whole thing was a sham and Trump was framed and they knew it. Funny how that whole "if you have nothing to hide" business works.
It's long past time to purge the government of corruption. I say we make a new cabinet position called secretary of sunlight and put Richard Grenell in c
better coverage here (Score:2)
More thorough coverage of that here [redstate.com].
Note that the FBI also "lost" the Flynn interview record, which was the basis for his protection. It "lost" the Woods document justifying assertions made to the FISA court when requesting permission to bug the Trump campaign. FBI somehow "lost" those records when they were stored the FBI's electronic document retention system. We know the Flynn interview was there because captured meta-information shows Peter Strzok's mistress Lisa Page repeatedly altering that record
Re: (Score:2)
from the parent:
"Note that the FBI also "lost" the Flynn interview record, which was the basis for his protection."
"prosecution", not "protection".
(Fucking auto-completion-correction bullshit.)
Well, intend does not get much more obvious (Score:2)
Make the mistake once, well, that is incompetence. Make it twice, that is intent. 15 times? Does not even need discussion.
Ugh,Slashdot passing on crap conspiracy propaganda (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just another day... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is only one question here: was it illegal? If it wasn't, then there is really no reason to discuss it, it was and is a nothingburger.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is quite unclear from your quote what "litigation" might have the members of the FBI investigative team "foreseen" that would have attached such duty as you describe.
Is an DOJ OIG investigation a "litigation"? If it isn't, then it is irrelevant. If it is, could it have been "foreseen" at the time?
It is quite unclear if this is so, and very far from "likely".
Re:Just another day... (Score:5, Informative)
Note they destroyed the evidence *after* the inspector general asked them to turn it over...They knew full well it was evidence in a federal investigation - the OIG told them so. So then they deleted it.
Can you cite that? What I'm seeing in the linked PDF was from over a year ago. The newest document was June or July of 2019, and it all looked to be just routine collection of government property as part of the exit procedures. The criminal probe into the team wasn't opened until October 2019, so I'm not sure how the OIG could have told them it was evidence in an investigation 3 to 4 months before that investigation even opened.
Starting at page 49 (Score:4, Insightful)
It starts around page 49 and goes from there - logging each piece of evidence copied from each phone, and noting that several agents "accidentally" wiped the phones when they were asked to provide them to the inspector general. One user, it notes, said the phone magically wiped itself without him doing anything.
Regardless whether the agents knew at the time that the OIG demanding the phones indicated an investigation, CERTAINLY they knew that the notes, photos, text messages, etc that they had in the phones were relevant to the investigation that they themselves were doing. Yeah, it's illegal for cops to delete the evidence they collected too.
Note that Mueller's team consisted of FBI agents and federal prosecutors - people who know about chain of custody and know better than to wipe evidence without following proper procedure to have everything pertinent preserved according to federal law and government standards. It's not like these were clueless newbies who don't know that deleting evidence related in any way to an investigation is taboo - they aren't like some clueless secretary of state who posts on Reddit asking how to wipe the server in their basement.
Re:Starting at page 49 (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, great. Now lets restate what the original claim was....that they wiped their phones "after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices to be handed over". Is that demonstrated in the PDF? I don't see it. In fact, what I see is a list of phones that were wiped at various times throughout 2018, from January through December. Was the OIG really collecting their phones throughout 2018? The probe was not wrapped up until March 2019, and the investigation of the probe was not opened until October 2019. These seem to be routine exit process reports. I'm not sure the OIG would be involved in that at all, and even if they were, is there any evidence they were using the phones up until the time they were requested? Seems like, given the shit our government can do, that would be a very easy thing for them to confirm.
So no, I don't see anything there to back up the actual allegation specifically being made.
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to look up some of the relevant laws regarding government records. But this isn't new at all, and should be obvious to anyone interested.
Re: Just another day... (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you are a Democrat running for President - Team Hillary took hammers to her devices rather than turn them over under a subpoena.
Apparently that was OK.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/pol... [cnn.com]
FOIA requirements apparently also don't apply - she never once, as Secretary of State, ever logged into her secure, gov't issued email account, preferring to conduct 100% of her work emails on a private server.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0... [nytimes.com]
And when a FOIA request revealed she left office and had not turned over a sin
Re:Just another day... (Score:4, Informative)
I guess if is was the "usual course of business" at the Department of Justice to wipe their employees phones, I guess it could be argued no harm, no foul -- although I am betting this was not the normal policy there...
From the PDF linked on this story, one of the emails says: "the Department routinely resets mobile devices to factory settings when the device is returned from a user to enable that device to be issued to another user in the future"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They had 30 employees. 15 of them 'accidentally' wiped or deleted their phones. In what company do you get such leeway?
Re:Just another day... (Score:4, Informative)
Where is the corruption in wiping your phone? It appears that the rules that regulate preservation of electronic evidence vary widely [findlaw.com] and resetting your phone is hardly synonymous with corruption.
What are you basing your claims of corruption on in this specific case?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least someone seems to get it. Good job.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course it never occurs to anyone that retaining those records on your phone is a problem and wiping them is the correct solution.
Re:Just another day... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, if you bother to read the doc you'll see that a bunch of them say their phones were wiped because the password was accidentally entered incorrectly too many times. Accidentally.
"after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices" (Score:3, Insightful)
Destroying evidence after the Department of Justice asks for is pretty much the definition of Obstruction of Justice, punishable by 20 years imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. Section 1519.
Re:"after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices" (Score:5, Informative)
Destroying evidence after the Department of Justice asks for is pretty much the definition of Obstruction of Justice, punishable by 20 years imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. Section 1519.
Forgive me if I didn't read 100% though an 87 page PDF of emails and inventory sheets, but the only thing I see in the linked document are emails from when they acquired the phones (requesting the hardware, cataloging them into inventory, etc), some exit clearance contracts specifying government property (ie: the phones) is to be returned (which doesn't seem to be in question that they did this) and that they are not to destroy official records (presumably the copy on the phone isn't the official record, and they would have copies of emails and stuff on the servers). I see a mention in one of the emails that "the Department routinely resets mobile devices to factory settings when the device is returned from a user to enable that device to be issued to another user in the future". It appears all this stuff was returned over a year ago, and I don't see any documentation in that PDF with a date from within the last year. I don't think anything was being investigated over a year ago. Everything in that PDF indicates any requests to return devices were just to recover the property, not that any sort of investigation was going on.
So in short, I'm not seeing anything in the actual link that the summary is suggesting. I'm not saying this doesn't exist, but how about showing me the actual evidence of what is being claimed.
Oh, and by the way....remind me again what punishment the president has received for all of his many acts of obstruction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices" (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so not reading every part of 87 pages = short attention span. Got it.
So the claim in the slashdot submission: "multiple top members of Mueller's investigative team claimed to have "accidentally wiped" at least 15 phones used during the anti-Trump investigation after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices to be handed over". Well I've looked at the short attention span version, and I see a few reports of phones being wiped on specific days throughout 2018, and in most cases, the document indicates the case was reviewed (by whoever was maintaining those inventory records) just a few days later. That Mueller probe wasn't wrapped up until March 2019. So you are telling me the OIG was asking for these phones back in the middle of the investigation? Seems more likely that the phone got wiped, then the employee went to the security team and said they needed it replaced or reimaged.
So again, please provide evidence of the claim.
Re:Just another day... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not their phone, it belongs to the US government, and as such the information there is subject to rules about archival and FOIA, etc. Even in the signed document, there's a paragraph...
I have not removed or destroyed any records, official documents, and/or documentary materials.from the. Department of Justice
that are expressly prohibited from removal/destruction. I have obtained and submitted to the component's Records
Custodian/Manager the written approval of the Deputy Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General for Administration, or
Component Head for the removal of any other, non-pub documentation as required in Policy statement 0801.02.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:gee dunno (Score:5, Informative)
The last date that a phone was wiped was 1/7/2019, Barr announced the investigation of the investigation on April 9, 2019. When the phones were wiped, none of these phones were evidence, there was no investigation to possibly obstruct, and there would not be for at least 3 more months.
This random hodgepodge of emails and forms is an intentional attempt to confuse the issue. They include emails about two individuals, one who had their phone reviewed 1 month after they left, wiped and reissued by the department according to the standard operating procedure while changing jobs, a couple of requests for texts 6 months after the phone was returned, and another request 17 months later when they thought of asking Verizon (who only keeps texts for 1 year). There was plenty of time for them to get the information. No emails or corroborating information on any of the other individuals whose phones were wiped.
Re: (Score:3)
The President does have delayed prosecution, but not immunity. Standing DOJ procedure is that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted.
If that President is successfully impeached, resigns, his term ends, etc. -- then that President can be prosecuted.
This does not apply to others below the President. (Not sure on the VP. Might apply to him as well.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just another day... (Score:5, Informative)
It was a lifelong Republican former head of the FBI leading an investigation into (among other things)the firing Republican head of the FBI appointed by a Republican official selected by a Republican President. The underlings were a mix of parties, but included people like Roger Stone's former assistant and people who have been Republican since Nixon's White House.
Re: (Score:2)
It's obviously a troll story from an anonymous troll.
:-) So that's what brought you here?
Hold my beer! Watch what happens next
What anti-trump investigation (Score:4, Interesting)
There never ever was any anti-trump investigation. It was an investigation of Russian interference. period. full stop. I could imagine a lot reasons why phones with intell sensitive info might get erased deliberately, and it's easy to imagine how they might be erased casually as well.
RTFA.... there were no erased phones (Score:5, Informative)
so this slashdot story links to a tweet? and the Tweet links to a pdf and the PDF has no basis for the claims made?
Re:RTFA.... there were no erased phones (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, everything in there was routine documentation for the acquisition of a phone and then it's return at the end of the employment contract, and the newest document (june or july of 2019) was 3 to 4 months before any criminal investigation into the Mueller team was even opened.
Re: (Score:2)
If these were not secure phones, and I'm betting they were not, then classified information on it would been inappropriate, indeed possibly illegal.
Anyways, archive laws govern all this.
Re: (Score:2)
I could imagine a lot reasons why phones with intell sensitive info might get erased deliberately, and it's easy to imagine how they might be erased casually as well.
Deliberately? Casually? It says right in the summary that these phones were wiped "accidentally". All these phones were "accidentally" wiped after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices to be handed over, and you don't see a problem with that?
The whole thing reeks of obstruction. Maybe you've got COVID and have lost your sense of smell?
Re:Isn't this a crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
Before doing so however give the judge and the jurors a phone and tell them to wipe all the data on it. They'll see that cannot be done by "accident".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Check the details, dingus.
The phones are setup to wipe after too many invalid unlock attempts are made. It's trivial to wipe them by accident provided somebody is entering a complicated password they're not used to entering. It's not an uncommon infosec policy to have on devices. Although I can imagine that depending on how desperate you are to skip all the details and go straight to the conclusion part of your politics, you'll find some other way of rationalizing to yourself that everything is a plot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's still not an accident. They were wiped on purpose via a deliberately-placed poison pill.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use that to explain away one or two incidents or people. Almost his entire team did this, some of them more than once. That isn't credible and a jury is never going to buy it.
Nor while they want to pursue it that hard. If they were that careless with their phones, than the public can well imagine how careless they were with the report itself. They are in a lose / lose proposition on this.
It doesn't take much for the judge to move from saying that the report itself isn't credible and throwing it out.
You should check the details... (Score:2)
> The phones are setup to wipe after too many invalid unlock attempts are made. It's trivial to wipe them by accident
Problem is, with their setup, you'd have to do that 10 times.
Are you really trying to convince us they were that dumb?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they "accidentally" used the wrong password multiple times on 15 different phones. That sounds likely.
Who modded this nonsense up?
Re: (Score:2)
Check the details, dingus.
The phones are setup to wipe after too many invalid unlock attempts are made. It's trivial to wipe them by accident provided somebody is entering a complicated password they're not used to entering. It's not an uncommon infosec policy to have on devices. Although I can imagine that depending on how desperate you are to skip all the details and go straight to the conclusion part of your politics, you'll find some other way of rationalizing to yourself that everything is a plot.
Yeah, looking at those documents it's amazing how many people suddenly forgot their password and then tried so many times they wiped their phones.
Re: Isn't this a crime? (Score:2)
So your argument/hypothesis is that spontaneously, after using the same government phones for the entirety of a two year investigation, they all just suddenly forgot their complex passwords and the devices got wiped?
You can't honestly believe that, can you?
Re: (Score:3)
Multiple people accidentally deleting evidence? Sounds like obstruction to me.
Not necessarily, if you delete your emails after they've been requested by the court, then it's a crime. If you delete your email right now, before the court requests it, then it's not a crime. Deleting records is something all of us do every day.
Presumably these people wiped the phones before they were requested (it might still be a crime, depending on the exact situation. For example, SOX requires corporate emails to be retained 7 years. I don't know the exact requirements for data retention for lawyer
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate emails are not required to be retained 7 years, en-mass. Only pertinent information must be retained, in some form.
Re:Isn't this a crime? (Score:5, Informative)
Having actually read the article, most of these appear to actually be things like the user losing the phone password or doing a factory reset. These are basically just IT tickets dressed up to be as damning as possible.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually reading the PDF is quite interesting. Firstly, several of the phones seem to have been accidentally erased by IT staff while looking for text and photos that were not already backed up. Maybe some people gave them the wrong PIN... Then there's a cluster in May 2018, at the same time as an inventory of all of the phones. Looks like someone collected all of the phones and reassigned them, so maybe everyone got new PINs that they promptly forgot... The vast majority of the phones have no interest
Re: Isn't this a crime? (Score:2)
Let's explore the coincidence angle, 15 out of how many devices on the investigation team?
How many devices were accidentally wiped during the two years of the investigation?
Kinda looks like they had no tech issues until FOIA requests started flying...
Re: (Score:2)
That seems like a lot of logical leaps taken based on very little data.
Re: (Score:3)
They lost all credibility when it happened to almost the entire team
It's almost like work equipment returned at the end of assignment gets wiped. CONSPIRACY!
Re: (Score:2)
laws for thee but not for me.
They are protected! We "have" a multi tier Justice System today.
Re: do you have any idea how much trump has hidden (Score:2)
Well, we know Hillary deleted 30K emails from her "work" email account because she deemed them 'private/personal'.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the support Trump enjoys is at least partially due to the behavior of his detractors, of which the hoaxes are only part of the equation. Go check out folks like Mark Hamil, Dave Bautista...they are over the top in their hate. They tend to be incredibly petty and hypocritical ( you can't pretend to #metoo AND support Biden ). Childish. I know a lot of folks who don't like Trump, but they feel he's the only serious option given how the opposition behaves.
All the dems had to do was nominate a "pa
Re: (Score:2)
All the dems had to do was nominate a "passable" candidate ( Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard would have be great ), but nope! Biden.
I wouldn't have picked him, but picking someone as far to the right as Biden is probably a pretty savvy move by the Democrats. He'll look a pretty attractive candidate to any Republicans with the decency and taste to abhor Trump.
Re: Hoax (Score:2)
He'll look a pretty attractive candidate to any Republicans with the decency and taste to abhor Trump.
No. There is an immense chasm to cross from 'disillusioned' Trump supporter to 'reluctant' Biden voter.
What does Biden offer defecting Republicans? "Come on, Man!"
Question: is Biden for or against Fracking
Answer: Yes. He will abolish fracking on federal lands, but he's cool with fracking on private land. If it's safe enough for private land, why ban it on federal land?)
Question: Does Biden support 'defunding' the police?
Answer: Yes, while he is against 'defunding the police' he supports taking funding away
Re: (Score:3)
The greatest nation on earth. Where Trump is a "serious option".
You are not convincing anyone to vote for Trump, you are convincing people that the US is full of retards.
Re: (Score:2)
Start getting use to the idea.
By learning Russian so we can all get instructions from Putin just like Trump does?
Re: (Score:2)
Have some reality: https://www.realclearpolitics.... [realclearpolitics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded down?
Welcome to /.
Re: (Score:2)
Every single poll says the black community is overwhelmingly for Biden. The number are like 10% for Trump and 50% for Biden.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither Biden nor Trump are free from mental errors - really none of us are, but only a handful are running for POTUS this year. That said, those who actually cared about the last election had clear reason to believe he was not fit to be POTUS then and still is not. We may not have thought Sen. Clinton was either, but that's another discussion.
The job of POTUS is difficult in good times. It actually requires the ability to absorb and process large amounts of information even when reduced to summaries by s
Re: Hoax (Score:2)
Yep. It was not a hoax. And Carter Page wasn't a CIA asset, Clinesmith didnt falsify an email notifying the FBI of that fact, and the Steele dossier's primary source wasn't a russian ex-pat working for a left wing think tank who was enough of a drunken souse that he was arrested by the feds for public drunkeness.
Re: (Score:2)
[Nancy] Reagan made it through [Ronald Reagan's] second term with [his] dementia...
Fixed that for you. 8^)
Re:Hanlon's Razor applies (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I personally think the windows way is superior.
On windows/dos, the FIRST part of a filepath indicates the physical location of the item (under most circumstances).
What can you tell me about the physical storage of the following file? F:/Somedirectory/somefile.jpg ? Well, you know it's on whatever physical drive is associated with the F drive.
What can you tell me about hte physical storage of /usr/firstnamelastname/desktop/somedirectory/somefile.jpg ? Pretty much nothing, without knowing how the particular filesystem is mapped. If something maps to somedirectory, it's there, otherwise it's whatever maps to desktop, otherwise it's whatever maps to firstnamelastname, otherwise usr, otherwise /
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you never used floppy drives. Floppy drives were always either A: or B:.
Ok, theoretically you could assign them any drive letter but who actually did that?
Re:Well they were mostly Hillary's people (Score:4, Insightful)
Mueller was never one of Hillary's people, or Obama's. Mueller essentially stabbed Hillary in the back, politically. It makes no sense that Mueller's team would be composed of die hard Hillary supporters. Most members of the DOJ and FBI below the upper leadership take their jobs seriously and leave the politics at home. But politicians don't understand the concept of being neutral.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you were in on the joke from the beginning... It's still funny, huh?
Re:Well they were mostly Hillary's people (Score:5, Interesting)
You think the Mueller investigation was within Trump's control? That's a special kind of stupid. Or just playing along.
Re: (Score:2)
You think the Mueller investigation was within Trump's control?
Well... despite his lack of trying ... /sarcasm
That's a special kind of stupid. Or just playing along.
Don't box me in dude, can't I be both? :-)
Re: Well they were mostly Hillary's people (Score:2)
Maybe, but at least one of those options is laden with humor...
Re: (Score:2)
A European or African swallow?
Re: (Score:2)
You think the Mueller investigation was within Trump's control? That's a special kind of stupid. Or just playing along.
It's not stupid man, Q decreed it so. Mueller and Trump are working closely together to bring down the peedofiles!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to fire all of the government employees when you win an election. In fact, it's next to impossible to fire a federal employee. Blame, if there is any, goes to whoever put these people in place.
Re: (Score:3)
It's their last vestige of hope in Trump. No matter how bizarre he gets, his supporters will stand up and say "at least Hillary lost!" This is in the same vein as Russians today who say "at last we stopped Hitler and saved the world!" No matter how bad things get, they look back at the one moment of glory shining through the clouds.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of having experts for digital forensics do all the handling of digital evidence? Because, you know, then such "accidents" do not happen. The very least that this solidly proves is extreme carelessness. But I think it proves intent.