> And, it's not a court of law. At best, it's "allegedly moved files when they weren't supposed to". Are you operating under the assumption that nothing should

> And, it's not a court of law. At best, it's "allegedly moved files when they weren't supposed to". Are you operating under the assumption that nothing should ever be stated as a fact unless determined by a court of law? Because that's not how I think of things. (I do agree that Google is a biased actor here. If I hear that Margaret Mitchell disputes moving files in contravention of company policy I will give her the benefit of the doubt. But my default assumption will be that everyone is telling the truth about basic facts.)