6 ms·

At this point it's not 'hard evidence', but it is testimony from the guy who claims to have been responsible for cleaning up after evidence was destroyed or cut

At this point it's not 'hard evidence', but it is testimony from the guy who claims to have been responsible for cleaning up after evidence was destroyed or cut off during raids. That's pretty damning, and worth a look...

irixusr 10y ago
The testimony of a guy under oath no less. And a testimony consistent with a pattern of illegal behavior that surely warrants a deep (criminal?) investigation with discovery.
- fstuff 10y ago
  He's not just a guy. He was the director of infosec and was the direct report to the CSO