“True:” Hunter Biden Prosecutor Derek Hines Claims 80-Plus Equals “A Couple”

In Derek Hines’ reply to Hunter Biden’s opposition to prosecutors somewhat failed bid to substitute summary for proving authenticity of his digital data, Hines accused Abbe Lowell of misunderstanding the digital discovery in the Hunter Biden gun case.

In the remainder of his Response, defense counsel demonstrates (1) they still do not understand the electronic evidence in this case that they received in discovery last fall, and (2) despite claiming they do, they actually have no evidence to give them “reasons to believe that data has been altered and compromised before investigators obtained the electronic material.” Doc. No 151 at p. 1. None of what they claim in their Response is admissible in court, and the government objects to any line of questioning suggesting the trial evidence may have been manipulated because there is no foundation for such questions, they are also irrelevant, and even the inference posed by such a question risks confusing the jury.

As often happens with Mr. Hines (he of the sawdust-as-cocaine error), this seems to be a case of projection.

In an exchange with Judge Maryellen Noreika at last week’s status hearing, Hines suggested that the way to validate digital data that may have been in other people’s hands was to match the content of it to real world events: to tie Hunter’s observation that he was in Delaware to ATM withdrawals made by a guy notorious at Wells Fargo for losing his ATM card.

MR. HINES: Your Honor, one point of clarification I would like to add, too, if I may. So the summary chart, as Your Honor has read, summarizes stuff from Apple. John Paul Mac Isaac, has nothing to do with that data for that production.

THE COURT: I understood that. And as I understood, that’s where the real contest comes in, not from the iCloud, I guess unless the iCloud was backed up at some time during April.

MR. HINES: So it comes from two devices that Hunter Biden had, his phone and his iPad, that were backed up to Apple. John Paul Mac Isaac never had custody of that phone or the iPad at this store. He had the laptop. That stuff that is on the summary chart has nothing to do with what Mr. Lowell is alleging from The Washington Post. What we’re using on the laptop are messages that will be corroborated by a witness in this case who will testify that she sent those messages and received those messages and then a couple of other messages which we have noted on page 3 of our reply. Where there was other corroboration, for example, a message that shows that he’s in Wilmington, Delaware and made an ATM withdraw, that shows that as well. This isn’t some vast array of messages from John Paul Mac Isaac that the Defendant alleges without evidence that he planted into his laptop. To be clear, we’ve asked for reciprocal discovery over and over again. They made this claim in the media that the laptop wasn’t true. We haven’t seen one scintilla, not one message that that isn’t true from the data that law enforcement turned over. And they can’t raise that issue in any meaningful way at trial because there is no evidence of it. We want to make that clear in our reply, the data coming in, and we don’t believe there is any basis for Mr. Lowell to make these kinds of–

To be clear, if Hines is correct that Hallie Biden — the witness he promised, “will testify that she sent those messages and received those messages” — really will validate the messages she and Hunter exchanged in the days immediately after he bought a gun, the entire question of the authenticity of Hunter’s data should be moot.

That’s the most important evidence at trial, because it would (at the very least), show Hunter acknowledging his addiction and probably consuming drugs during the 11 days he owned a gun, going a long way to proving the strongest of three charges against the President’s son.

But David Weiss’ prosecutors are thinking bigger than that.

They’re obsessed with the bacchanalia Hunter had during spring and summer 2018 in Los Angeles, and plan to rely heavily on that — events that transpired before Hunter’s final attempt at recovery before he purchased the gun — to prove his addiction. And they keep claiming the state of Hunter’s addiction after Ketamine treatment from Fox News pundit Keith Ablow shows the state of his addiction in October 2018, when he owned a gun; again, they want to use memoir passages and texts from that period to prove the state of his earlier addiction. There are discontinuities in Hunter’s addiction that make those other periods less probative to the case.

And to submit this evidence, they’re seeking to admit a bunch of communications on either side of rehab attempts that won’t involve a counterpart to Hunter’s communications to validate them, as Hines promises Hallie will for communications during the period Hunter owned the gun.

In this exchange Hines makes some misleading and one outright false claim. He seems to suggest to Judge Noreika that the summary chart only includes stuff from Hunter’s iCloud. He seems to suggest that none of the data in the summary chart went through John Paul Mac Isaac’s hands, when half of it did. Probably that’s just imprecision — a lack of specificity that just some of the messages were from the iCloud, that just some of the messages were from two devices that were backed up to Hunter’s iCloud.

But as to the claim that in addition to the messages that Hallie will validate, there are “a couple of other messages”?!?!

Here’s his description of the “couple” of messages noted on page 3 of the reply.

Messages in Row 85-86 (a message where the defendant says “I need more chore boy,” which is used consistently in the message with how the defendant described “chore boy” in his book), Rows 87 and 135-137 (messages where the defendant says he in Delaware, which is consistent with his ATM withdrawal activity, location information on photographs on his phone, and his admissions in his book), Row 214 (a photograph of the defendant with a crack pipe in his hand), and 216-292 (videos and photographs of the defendant with a crack pipe and drug messages from December to March 2019, consistent with the defendant’s characterization of his activity in his book).

That’s upwards of 80 communications, and he may have excluded a few that don’t involve Hallie (this table breaks out various kinds of comms sourced to the laptop, partly to show outliers, partly to break out comms from the laptop that involve Hallie — marked in pink — and those that do not).

Eighty is not “a couple.”

Even among the texts exchanged with Hallie, I have questions about some, such as the November 3, 2018 text posted without any metadata and with a dark line (as if it came from some other table).

The January 28, 2019 text Hunter sent Hallie, describing that she threw his gun in a dumpster, will be another for which her validation will be key (and for which contextual texts may be pertinent).

I have questions about some of the stuff from iCloud, too — again, because the metadata suggests it does not reflect a backup taken of the device on which the content was captured.

But among the 80-plus other comms, several are presented without the kind of metadata that would make the reliable.

And that’s just what’s included in the summary chart.

Which gets me to the really curious part of Hines’ argument. Both at the hearing and earlier, he impatiently complained that Hunter’s team hadn’t provided any reciprocal discovery — meaning, something like the John Paul Mac Isaac deposition obtained as part of the lawsuit and countersuit (in which a decision has been pending since February). Hines seems to imagine that a witness testifying to altering documents would be the only basis on which Hunter could challenge the authenticity of the digital data prosecutors obtained, whether in public or at trial.

He seems not to have considered whether he already gave Hunter the evidence to challenge the authenticity of such data, using the very same techniques the FBI uses all the time in cybersecurity investigations: the metadata from about six different Hunter Biden accounts.

For his part, Abbe Lowell seems quite certain that some of the material in the FBI’s hands is not authentic. which is different than being confident that some of these communications are.

THE COURT: I understand, but do you disagree if he wants to ask, look, he dropped off the laptop in April, you got it in December, that he can ask that?

MR. HINES: He can ask that timing question, absolutely, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LOWELL: And one more thing, Judge. I think there may be — I have no quarrel with the point if they have a witness that said I sent this or received this message, of course that’s fine. It’s just that it seems to me their point was they wanted a broad stroke agreement or stipulation that the data is all authentic as opposed to —

THE COURT: And can be tied to Mr. Biden?

MR. LOWELL: Yes. And so I can’t make that because we know to the contrary. I think your point about there might be individual things to raise, if we find that, we will, but I don’t have a disagreement with what you and Mr. Hines just said.

THE COURT: Okay. And I guess we can address that to the extent it comes up in trial. So as I understandit, the government is asking for a ruling that the summary of voluminous messages is appropriate under the Federal Rule of Evidence 1006. Defendant doesn’t object to that. So I will allow this as a summary chart. The government is seeking to have this chart authenticated as of the date that the government received the laptop into federal — some federal agent’s custody. The Defendant does not disagree with that. So I will grant the motion to the extent that is what the motion is seeking.

With respect to whether particular messages on there can be challenged, we will have to take that on a case-by-case basis at the trial.

MR. HINES: Your Honor, on point two that you just read for your ruling, it’s the laptop and the Apple iCloud because the Apple iCloud came into the custody of law enforcement independently of the laptop. I wanted to make sure that was our request as well.

THE COURT: Thank you for that clarification.

MR. LOWELL: One other thing as to what you pointed out in terms of the book. We raised the issue of completeness for their 1006 chart, which we will also talk to them about.

THE COURT: If there is stuff that you want to add.

MR. LOWELL: If not, we will proffer our own if we can’t agree. [my emphasis]

Notably, there has been no discussion of retired Secret Service Agent Robert Savage’s claims that Joseph Ziegler interviewed him based on what both Savage and Hunter claim were fabricated texts; those texts date to the same Los Angeles bacchanalia that Weiss’ team loves.

But being certain that there are some files in Hunter’s digital evidence (and Lowell appears to believe this is true of stuff saved to the iCloud as well) is different than being certain that certain of the communications prosecutors will rely on at trial are fabricated or planted. The import of all this will depend on how much it is — and whether and, if so, how well FBI Agent Erika Jensen, through whom prosecutors wanted to introduce this evidence by using summary in lieu of authentication, can answer questions about digital attribution. She’s likely playing this role because she is not privy to all the technical details about Hunter’s digital data.

Perhaps the most remarkable part of this exchange, however, is that Hines measures this in terms of what is “true,” rather than whether it is “authentic.” “They made this claim in the media that the laptop wasn’t true. We haven’t seen one scintilla, not one message that that isn’t true.” But Hines has already proven that things he deems “true” may not be “authentic.” He claimed, as true, that a message sent by Keith Ablow was a true representation of Hunter’s (powder) cocaine use. Never mind that it was sawdust, not cocaine — that is, it wasn’t even “true.”

But it also wasn’t “authentic.” It wasn’t Hunter’s photo.

This is the mirror image of a logical problem that right wing propagandists (and certain apologists for Russia have) about the laptop and about Russian hack-and-leak efforts: proving something’s authenticity as a way to dodge proving that an authentic message proves the truth claim they’re making. Here, Hines is simply skipping the authentication step (and he may well get away with it).

We shall see next week. Judge Noreika has left the door open to Hunter’s team challenging this digital data (contrary to what some of the reporting on the hearing claimed), and prosecutors have likely left themselves open to more significant challenges by including data that is less probative to their case than the texts Hallie can validate herself.

At the hearing, Judge Noreika also left open the possibility of Hunter submitting on full pages from his memoir, not just the excerpts picked by prosecutors (though her order may be limited to pages, not longer passages).

[T]he motion will be granted in part. The pages offered by the government may be admitted, but the motion is denied to the extent that the government seeks to admit a page from Defendant’s memoir without giving him the opportunity to seek the admission of additional relevant sentences or passages from that same page subject to the Rule of Completeness so long as the statements made meet other requirements for relevance and prejudice. The excerpts by the way still need to come in through a witness.

Now, that being said, I will note that no one has provided me with un-redacted pages from the book, so I can’t tell you at this point whether I view any of the redacted portions to be properly admissible on the Rule of Completeness or the relevance and prejudice, but I do think it’s unfair that Defendant wouldn’t be given an opportunity to establish that.

She has yet to rule on the ATF form doctored after the fact by the gun shop. But Derek Hines did, at least, provide a non-responsive explanation for the source of the three colors on the form.

THE COURT: So you are planning to call Mr. Cleveland. And he is going to say I watched the Defendant fill out the form. I wrote down — did he write down — I noticed that with Mr. Lowell’s motion, he gave me a color copy of the form, which was nice. So is he going to be able to testify who wrote stuff in red, blue, black, whatever?

MR. HINES: Yes, he will. He will testify that Mr. Biden filled out Section A, which is the section that can only be completed by the buyer. And he will testify that he signed the form. You can see his signature on the third page of the form. And then he will testify that Jason Turner filled out Section B of the form. Jason Turner is another employee of StarQuest.

THE COURT: And who filled out — oh, Section B.

MR. HINES: Correct, Section B.

THE COURT: It looks like the same person who makes their zeros like that, but some are in black and some are in red.

MR. HINES: Correct. Based on the information the government has, he will testify that Mr. Turner completed Section B of the form.

Again, prosecutors have a strong case against Hunter Biden. But two of three ways in which they attempted to mitigate the holes in their case have at least partly failed.

Update: Corrected date of November 3 text.

35 replies
  1. Upisdown says:

    If a photo isn’t an obvious selfie, or taken using a mirror, the question has to be: “who took that picture?”

    The follow-up question would be: “how did the photo get on the laptop?” If someone takes a picture of me that gets saved into one of my photo albums, there has to be a text or email that I received with an attachment that I downloaded and saved.

    • boatgeek says:

      I’ve had my picture taken any number of times with my own phone, which addresses the “how did it get to my computer” question. That does leave “who took it,” but that’s also often not terribly useful. For me, it’s often taken with a timer, though there’s plenty of pictures out there taken on the photo subject’s phone by random strangers.

  2. zscoreUSA says:

    I have questions about some of the stuff from iCloud, too — again, because the metadata suggests it does not reflect a backup taken of the device on which the content was captured.

    Same here, particularly the 6s, which is possibly the phone that was supposed to be deleted and sent back to Apple in late February, before the April 11, 2019 preservation notice from IRS to Apple.

    An interesting exercise is to look at the discovery filing by the prosecutors back in February with the trial brief comms file they plan to be used as evidence in the trial.

    A couple of things that stand out, when comparing how the same texts are described in both filings.

    1) in the Feb filing, texts from July are sourced to XRNashua iCloud Backup 1. Which is possibly a double error. XRNashua should be iCloud Backup 11, and iCloud Backup 1 is an iPhone X. The new comms table list the July messages as iCloud (04) which I believe is an iPad Pro, which makes more sense given the time frame.

    2) the Feb filing sources November & December messages to Robert’s iPad SMS file location from the iCloud Backup 4 source. The new comms filing sources to iCloud (03) which I believe is an iPhone 6s. [Note: Robert’s iPad is indeed an iPad Pro, while Roberts iPad (without apostrophe) is not iPad Pro]

    There may be others I didn’t notice, but these inconsistencies can probably be attributed to mistakes by the prosecution team. One of many errors so far, so it makes me wonder if this prosecution team has a normal fumble rate or are for some reason normal tech agents not working on this case, and less tech inclined investigators performing the work.

    Also, while I suspect prosecution team error is the most likely explanation, in the back of my mind I wonder if the prosecutors sourced something correctly in February but realized that the device had data that didn’t make sense unless someone tampered with it to add data that should be on a different device for a specific time period. In other words to hide evidence of someone tampering with Hunter’s data.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m sort of approaching it from a different angle, for now anyway.

      1) Why would Hunter only start using the JPMI laptop for messaging on 2/25/19, and why is the metadata different. He SHOULD have a working phone at that point.
      2) Via what means did the iTunes iPhone take the two pictures while at Ablow’s? And why the gap in its usage (besides that he started using the iPhone 8)? Why return to it?
      3) Why was the 10/16/18 phone created on 11/27/18, and saved to the iTunes iPhone?
      4) Why the iPhone 8 on 10/22 but back to iPhone XS on 10/27? And why the thumbnail on 10/24?

      Re: the possibility they’re trying to hide recognition of data tampering, I really can’t overstate the likelihood that poor Erika Jensen is on the hook for BOTH all this digital evidence and now the suspect interviews with the gun shop guys.

      The latter was just sloppy. The FBI NEVER has an agent do a potentially important call solo. Though it’s certainly possible they didn’t realize they misunderstood the guns shop files.

      But it is very likely they’re using Jensen just to ensure someone is totally walled off from a bunch of real knowledge about the laptop, INCLUDING the search they did post-December 4 warrant (note, Jensen relies on the original laptop warrant here, not the 12/4/23 warrant).

      • zscoreUSA says:

        Initial responses off the top of my head. When I get an opportunity I plan to look into more details, in particular the intermingling of the iPhone 8 Plus(es)

        1) at some point Hunter’s cell service stopped due to not paying a bill. At some point he requests money to pay bill and also says he needs to have access to WiFi to communicate

        2, 3, 4) the intermingled iPhone 8 Plus data. I’m not sure why and I’m really confused how the photos end up in the same Live Photo album. Also, I believe there are 2 iPhone 8 Pluses. As in, he got the second one which is gray and named HB rediPhone via insurance to replace the lost one that is literally Red, then later found the Red one, based on mirror selfies where the color of the phone is visible.

        Is it weird that Hunter will not have an expert witness testify about the authenticity of the laptop or the data stored on it? That was one of the things I was looking forward to.

        • emptywheel says:

          Expert disclosure shows your hand to prosecutors.

          Perhaps they believe they’re better of surprising them, especially if Hines doesn’t know what he has handed over in metadata, as I suspect.

    • emptywheel says:

      Curse you. I’m trying hard not to get too sucked into this as it’ll become more clear next week.

      If iCloud (04) is an iPad, wouldn’t that be the iPad that got stolen in August 4?

      And via what means were the texts from August 8 saved onto a laptop that wasn’t obtained until October 22, without also getting saved to iCloud?

      • Shadowalker says:

        Bear in mind that they still have to prove that Hunter either created or placed (caused) each item of evidence on that particular hardrive, regardless of whatever digital copies are out there. This comes from Congress when they modified the rules with respect to digital information.

      • zscoreUSA says:

        If my theory is correct that the stolen device was that particular iPad Pro, then I am still confused by the dates here used for evidence.

        Aug 4/5: device stolen

        Aug 5: begins deletion of Robert’s iPad, deletes Wells Fargo card on Robert’s iPad

        Sept 11: after 5 weeks, Apple has deleted Robert’s iPad, which to me sounds like there shouldn’t be anything in that iCloud Backup

        Jan 15: Robert’s iPad re-assocciates with the Apple account

        Feb 16: puzzling screenshot on laptop showing Robert’s iPad and Mac Isaac laptop as the 2 devices that can recover all Apple data

        July 2022: so-called iCloud hack and leak on 4 Chan which only has 2 devices, Robert’s iPad and the backed up XS. (I wish DDOS would do a forensic analysis there. They said they downloaded the contents while it was available)

        So, if my theory is correct that the iPad Pro was stolen, deleted, then re-associated, and had the ability to sync and store all of the data, why can’t the prosecution source all of the texts to that iPad?

        • emptywheel says:

          FWIW, I think the data would only have been deleted from the iPad, not the iCloud of it. That’s part of the problem. Say the iPad still has access on August 8. What happens to texts sent on it?

        • Troutwaxer says:

          It’s because in the world of big data, you don’t ever delete anything. You just mark it ‘deleted’ in your database and nobody can touch that data (other programs honor the ‘deleted’ mark) until someone removed the ‘deleted’ flag.

      • zscoreUSA says:

        As far as by what means the August 8 message ends up on the laptop, I’m not certain how syncing in iCloud works. Like once the laptop syncs in the Fall does it update with prior messages from all synced devices?

        Here’s a few other relevant dates/areas that might guide further research and analysis:

        1) 4/11/18: oldest message on the laptop by date

        2) Maryman Report says the hard drive “created” 3/28/18. Is that the date of manufacture in a factory? The date the hard drive first booted up and a user account created? Seems odd for a laptop purchased in October

        3) ECF 158 Trial Brief cites 3/9/18 texts with ex-wife but not included In comms chart or warrant/source identified.

        4) What is Impact of 4/11/19 preservation request to Apple on which devices are backed up?

        5) None of the 40 digit device identifiers on the warrant match the device identifiers on Dimitrelos report

    • klynn says:

      IANAL. I still do not understand why the authenticity of the data and the laptop content is not a demand by the court or a threshold required to meet? I could really use a class on Rule 37 – Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions.

      It seems to my IANAL mind that presenting tainted data is a form of not cooperating in discovery and is also failing to disclose the evidential risk of the data being false or tampered with. This lack of requiring more analysis on the risk of taint from the laptop evidence (and phones) has been confusing to me from the moment it was clear the laptop was tampered with and has some questionable possession history.

  3. zscoreUSA says:

    For the “liar and a thief” message, good question about the metadata. It doesn’t show if it came from Hunter from a phone number or an email account.

    Looking at the XS PDF from Marco Polo, the redaction looks like it is just the end of the previous sentence in the message. Similar to the message from 1/28/19 that is screenshot here, the prosecutors redacted the first lines of text and only included another portion. For the November 3rd (not November 2nd) text, it looks like they clipped the header and the first lines of redacted text. The message is otherwise in blue not green on the file which I believe indicates whether sms vs iMessage, but I am still confused how that stuff works.

    Since the other messages have metadata and large portions of redacted text, this appears inconsistent by the prosecution. I would guess it was just an error. Like rushing to turn in an assignment without time to proofread and dot the i’s and cross t’s.

  4. Fancy Chicken says:

    Heh, even Norieka called the amount of text messages “voluminous”.

    I’m just really shocked that that the prosecution is trying to get away with trying to introduce electronic evidence with a summary rather than authentication. Just as a recent example, the prosecution in Trump’s trial offered a number of technical experts to validate clips of video and text messages.

    Just the metadata on the sawdust pic alone shows it’s not “true” or “authentic”, right? Maybe that’s why the prosecution wants to summarize to allow crap like that in while trying to escape the provenance problem.

    As always, the actions of Weiss’s team leaves me seething with a pounding headache. I hope HB gets some kind of win on the evidentiary issues.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Hines seems to confuse what might be true with what might be admissible. True statements are often inadmissible as evidence of the truth, though they can be admitted to challenge a witness’s credibility.

    But the big deal is that Hines’s argument says he has no clue about how to authenticate digital evidence. Or that he knows his is not authenticate, but wants it admitted anyway.

    • The Old Redneck says:

      Yep. And I don’t see how an FBI agent can authenticate this stuff either. They’re going to need Hallie, but there may be limits on how much she can vouch for besides her own messages.

  6. freebird says:

    The bemusing thing about this case is how the same action like buying a gun can be treated differently given the same circumstances. Note well, if the gun was purchased at a gun show, from an online seller or in a private sale this whole rigamarole would have been obviated. The penalty for buying a gun from a licensed dealer and filling out a form incorrectly is a fine up to $250k and 10 years in jail. Purchasing the gun by the other aforementioned methods is pedestrian.

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Jury Verdict is in on Donald Trump’s NY Criminal Fraud Trial!

    Jury asks for about another half hour, until about 5.15 pm, to fill out the paperwork.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      That’s what’s required for every guilty or not guilty verdict.

      He’s Guilty on all 34 counts.

      • Shadowalker says:

        The extra 30 minutes was to be sure they were all in agreement. I saw the same sort of thing happen the one time I served as a juror. An acquittal wouldn’t have taken as much time.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The reporting is that the jury asked for the time to fill out the form for each of 34 separate counts.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Exactly. They were making sure that they were in total agreement on each count. Which means the foreperson was reading each count and asking if all were in agreement.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Not my argument or one I consider probable. Reaching agreement is not the same as filling out 34 separate forms.

          A jury foreperson would not start filling out a pile of forms without having determined that the jury had already reached agreement on each count. Not with two lawyers on the jury.

        • Shadowalker says:

          It doesn’t take 30 minutes to fill out a check list on three sheets. They were making absolutely sure that a mistake wasn’t made.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Jury rules? Deliberations were over and there is nothing in the rules that says the jurors as a group cannot satisfy amongst themselves that they are unanimous. My particular experience was a civil trial (tort), and the plaintiff didn’t do her case any favors when she tried entering additional evidence on cross. We determined it was unanimous for the defendant within one minute after the door was closed, several of us (including myself) kept asking the group if anyone had any misgivings four or five times. Then we informed the court we had reached a verdict, then spent about 30 minutes (waiting to be called) poking holes in the plaintiff’s case. Yeah, it was a waste of time but the judge informed us that it was important and we treated it as such.

  8. zscoreUSA says:

    As far as discovery from Mac Isaac v Hunter, here is an interesting exchange from Hunter’s deposition that Mac Isaac filed.

    Page 53

    A. [Hunter] [describes the Mac Isaac invoice in front of him including DC Number 1 and iCloud email address] And then it gives a graph of a description of the cost which is $85. And then a signature line. And then it has some squiggles. You want me to keep reading?
    Q. [Mr. Della Rocca] No, that’s good for now. Do you recognize that telephone number?
    A. I do.
    Q. Is that your telephone number?
    A. Not currently, no.
    Q. In 2019, in early 2019, was that your telephone number?
    A. I don’t recall exactly. But that was my telephone number in the past.
    Q. Okay. Do you recognize that e-mail address that you used?
    A. Yes.
    Q. On the signature line, does that look like your signature?
    A. It does not.

    Q. Doesn’t, okay.
    A. No.
    Q. Okay.
    [My emphasis]

    The only public reporting I have seen about this deposition was by Miranda Devine in the NY Post.

    She doesn’t directly quote the exchange quotes above, which she yada yadas.

    Devine does, however, use plenty of other direct quotes from the deposition, but not that one. Most (or possibly all) of the direct quotes in the article do not appear in the portion of discovery that Mac Isaac actually filed. So I suspect Mac Isaac gave her a copy of the entire deposition.

    • emptywheel says:

      It’ll be interesting to see if prosecutors submit the phone and email records of contact w/JPMI at trial. Or the cigar bar purchase, or the ATM withdrawals.

Comments are closed.