the plain reading of what you wrote was that the provider wiped the phones. which doesn’t sound at all like what happened
to quote a different failed president: fool me once, shame on - shame on you? fool me twice, can’t shame me again
from the op:
the Secret Service received ample advance warnings and threats before President John F. Kennedy’s death… The Secret Service told investigators the records had been destroyed as part of a normal culling of old archives — days after investigators had requested them.
they haven’t released anything to prove their explanation- and they easily could - so why give them the benefit of doubt?
that’s just as much an assumption on your part as mine was that they wipe them before sending them back. but i maintain wiping hardware before returning it for recycling or resale is totally normal. i lease computers regularly, and we always wipe them before returning.
sure, but you’re probably not used to having to abide by public record keeping directives. nor probably have you witnessed a coup first hand. nor probably would you let your computers ( or phones ) be wiped if - days before they were to be erased - you received a letter from congress asking for their contents
and all that still supposes there was a scheduled replacement ( we only have their statement, no actual records. ) and that if there was, that it was actually scheduled in advance, and without knowing or suspecting the records might be wanted
it’s not like there was anything special about the end of the orange presidency or anything. and not like there wasn’t an ongoing highly public investigation
there’s so much room for doubt here. from an organization that has been less than honest in the past and less than ethical in the present… there’s no reason i can see to take what they’re saying at face value
all true, but still, their official statement makes clear that they were wiping the phones as part of a normal procedure that was already in progress when all this happened, and they are fully complying with the investigation. i fully agree there’s more to the story to be uncovered, but i don’t think they are part of any nefarious derring-do:
i feel like you keep missing the part why taking their official statement at face value isn’t warranted
they’re not under oath. and all cop organizations have a tangential relationship with the truth at best
( eta: beyond the op and my previously mentioned points, keep in mind this is the organization you’re suggesting is on the up and up given only their own say so
