28 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Herb Klinker (FL and Umbria)'s avatar

I imagine he already knew he was in deep doo-doo. My guess those devices are as clean as newly fallen snow.

Expand full comment
George E Dobbs's avatar

There is only two ways Clark could have “…cleaned his devices…”

(1). Burn all into a melted glob of plastic, rubber, and precious metals, or

(2). Have the same specialized software and skilled genius personnel as the United States National Security Agency, (NSA).

He did neither.

Additionally, there is now substantial discovered, (forensically uncovered), information cross referencing the data Clark may have thought he deleted.

Such uncovered information will prove he attempted purposeful withholding of evidence of his criminal complicity.

His goose is cooked and he knows it now!

Ha!

Good riddance to another filthy rotten vermin Traitor, Eh!?

Expand full comment
Dave Smucker's avatar

Our son is a professor of computer science at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.His area of research is in data search and and retention. His comment is that it is always there. He is paranoid about hacking of banking accounts to the point of having a separate computer that is used for investment accounts etc. and turned off when not in use.

I think the hearing of June 23 is more than a smoking gun, it a smoking howitzer.

Expand full comment
Pensa_VT's avatar

Ah....aptly stated. I don't really have the words to describe the relief that what many of us knew is finally having giant lights shed upon it and the instigators. There is much more, but this is now a new kind of tension and I am breathing better knowing the wannabe Narcissus Nazi king is going to be defeated along with all, or at least most, of his comrades. Take heart, friends, Garland is on this as much as the J6 Committee has been on this. What heroes they all are.

Expand full comment
Bryan Sean McKown's avatar

Clark had less than two (2) options: Full data recovery is very likely from a single device, single server particularly if linked to a cloud network. Toast. UPDATE: Back on October 3, 2021, the Select Committee already served a letter on "Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Esq.' to appear before the Select Committee on October 29, 2021. Likely, the Select Committee already has substantial direct evidence on Clark from other co-conspirators.

Expand full comment
diana from SF's avatar

He may have chucked his old devices and purchased new, clean ones. If he still has his old devices, deleted material is still accessible to a pro before it's written over by new material. So Clark's writings may still be there.

Expand full comment
100Panthers's avatar

Yeah if FBI is looking for new info, it's a bit late. BUT if FBI can (or did) obtain info via DOJ servers, Cloud storage, etc. and show attempts to hide the writings via Clark being cute with his devices, that is Obstruction of Justice. 18 USC 1501-1521. Often it's easier to convict of the cover up than the crime itself.

Expand full comment
John W Purcell's avatar

Watergate was all about the cover-up, not the burglary itself. Every one of the major participants, save the burglars themselves, went to jail over the cover-up.

Expand full comment
Dirk Addertongue's avatar

Aye, but now Trump has six "pets" on the Supreme Court. Very unsettling. We can only hope that at least two of them haven't been completely domesticated yet.

Expand full comment
diana from SF's avatar

Ha! They've all be domesticated. Roe v Wade was reversed today.

Expand full comment
Dirk Addertongue's avatar

Hi there, dear! I was sorta near you last month, but I sure wish I'd been able to visit Merida instead of Cancun (which I view as an angler fish lure dangled into the Caribbean to attract Americans). The cenotes we saw were gorgeous! The two-hour, unair-conditioned, bus ride to get there, less so.

Expand full comment
daria (MID)'s avatar

Ah! Next time Dirk! Yeah, I don't do Cancun, it's atrocious! The cenotes are wonderful. I'm surprised the bus trip was unpleasant, that's unusual and unfortunate 😕

Expand full comment
Ally House (Oregon)'s avatar

Makes me appreciate my trip to Cozumel then Merida even more!

Expand full comment
JDinTX's avatar

Excellent, always hated “the cloud,” but glory.

Expand full comment
JDinTX's avatar

If not, he is a moron of MAGA proportions.

Expand full comment
T L Mills's avatar

He hasn't shown much evidence that he is NOT 'a moron of MAGA proportions'.

Expand full comment
Diane Love (St Petersburg FL)'s avatar

Hopefully arrogance blinded him to the danger. These folks thought they were above the law.

Expand full comment
Robert McTague's avatar

You can't clean them. You either physically, utterly destroy them or they can be scraped.

Expand full comment
Karen Herman (AR)'s avatar

True, they can be degaussed by a data destruction company, but the devices would be useless afterwords.

Expand full comment
T L Mills's avatar

I very much doubt Clark is smart enough to be able to clean those devices well enough to evade the expertise of the computer/electronics forensic analysts from the FBI. Clark strikes me as more of an opportunist as opposed to a savvy strategist.

Expand full comment
Dirk Addertongue's avatar

Remember how hard it was to get rid of Sec. of State Clinton's emails? It's even harder now, both to get rid of data and to conceal the attempt.

Expand full comment
Louis Giglio's avatar

Except if you are trump whose phone logs are incomplete for Jan 6; whose old phones can’t be found or more classified documents taken from the White House are floating in his cesspool at Mar a Lardo.!

Expand full comment
George E Dobbs's avatar

There is a phone record of EVERY phone call conducted from one phone to another, the problem is that is all there is, e.g. the only data saved is the record of the transmission time and location.

Who actually made the call remains unknown.

However a strong supposition of who made and received the call is never much in doubt.

However such supposition when in a court of law is the job of the judge or jury to determine whether evidence, (such supposition is referred to in court as heresy and is often objected to by the opposing attorneys with the judge sustaining such objection), offered as proof is credible.

Expand full comment
Barbara D. Reed's avatar

George E. Dobbs just a quick question-did you mean "Hear Say"? "heresy" is a religious term.

Expand full comment
George E Dobbs's avatar

Hi Barbara D. Reed:

Both probably while discussing Clark, Eh!?

Thanks!

Expand full comment