Conversation
-
Sheri Mecklenburg’s Tech Troubles: “It’s on the E drive. It’s on the stick.”
source
Goddamnit.There’s something I can’t get out of my head from Chicago US Attorney Andrew Boutros’ bid to defeat sanctions for his prosecutors’ misconduct.
William Hogan makes excuses, Boutros parrots them
Much of Boutros’ response to defendants’ bid for discovery, sanctions, and investigation attempts to bolster the excuses AUSA William Hogan offered to Judge April Perry on May 21 to explain why the redactions he made to the grand jury transcripts hid Sheri Mecklenburg’s misconduct before the grand jury.
MR. PARENTE: Too, Judge, again, you repeatedly say there’s only 30 lines. There’s only 30 lines. These gentlemen were sitting here and heard the Court say that and now we find out there are missing pages. I don’t understand how that is not misleading the Court. I understand Mr. Boutros advocating for his AUSAs, but having done the job, if I heard a Judge say, well, there is only 30 lines. I think it’s IT related, what could it be. And I know in my mind what is going on here, how do you not approach the Court?
MR. HOGAN: I’d like to address that. The direction was to give the Court the law on 372 charge and there was a lot of other discussion in the grand jury. And the missing pages also account for the testimony of at least two witnesses. We just didn’t turn over the testimony of one of the agents, for example, or both of the agents, I think.
THE COURT: Mr. Parente still has not seen the transcripts.
MR. HOGAN: There was some IT issues.
MR. PARENTE: I’m sure there were. But these are games that civil attorneys play. This isn’t what someone whose job it is to always do the right thing should do. Again, this was personal, Judge. It was quoted in the paper, “Prosecutors blasted Parente for hysterically speculating about perceived misconduct in what was the normal practice” —
He was just following Judge April Perry’s order, Hogan claimed, providing just the legal instructions on the conspiracy charge. And besides, her misimpression that any withheld materials had to do with technical problems wasn’t entirely baseless. “There was some IT issues,” Hogan claimed.
I’ve already shown that Hogan’s claim he complied with Judge Perry’s instructions (and Boutros’ claim that this is undisputed) is bullshit.
Hogan withheld one of the most important points of instruction, about whether people who walked away from the SUV that had just driven into a peaceful protest could be charged with conspiracy. This was one of the core issues that defendants had raised in their requests for grand jury transcripts, so its redaction is particularly damning. Hogan also withheld an exchange on October 9 about the import of the ICE goon driving into protestors; while it’s a less important legal instruction than the other redacted passage, both Hogan and AUSA Matthew Skiba treated it as legal instruction for the later grand jury hearings.
Boutros attempts to make Hogan’s IT claim credible
But Boutros’ attempt to rescue Hogan’s claim that “There was some IT issues,” is problematic for other reasons. As I wrote here, Boutros does cite purported tech issues in his narrative of how the indictment went down. But what he cites as evidence is all over the map. He includes when the court reporter helped Sheri Mecklenburg set up her computer. He includes the grand jury foreperson confirming to Mecklenburg that the orange light indicates her transcript recorder was on. He includes one instance where Matthew Skiba was wrestling with his videos, but not a second one, in the subsequent transcript. And the pièce de résistance, Boutros points to where Mecklenburg says her battery ran out as a technical problem, a fair argument, as far as that goes.
There are two problems with Boutros’ inventory, on top of the fact that there’s no consistency to the things Boutros treats as technical problems. Of the four things Boutros cites as technical problems, several — the one from October 9, and the one right at the beginning of October 16 — would have been invisible to Judge Perry when she first reviewed the transcripts; Hogan redacted those bits. The part of the October 23 transcript where AUSA Skiba again struggles a bit with the video also appears in a redacted section — Skiba, in fact, said he was comfortable with doing the video right before the redaction, in what Perry could see. The clearest reference to technical problems that would have been visible to Judge Perry appears in the October 16 transcript where Skiba says, “Sheri, of course I’m having technical difficulties” before a 12-line redaction, during which the prosecutors discuss the video problems while Mecklenburg gripes about people who left before the ICE witness testified. But that’s just a 12-line redaction. That can’t explain Perry’s misimpression.
A far more important purported technical problem — where Mecklenburg says her battery has run out — does not (based on the publicly released redacted transcript) appear in the redacted transcripts provided to Perry, either, at least as they were subsequently released. But Mecklenburg’s claim her battery ran out should have appeared, even in the redacted transcript. In the since-released unredacted transcript, it is time-stamped to have occurred at 10:11 which, based on that time stamp, should have appeared before testimony broke before lunch on October 16, but which currently appears at the end of the transcript, after testimony (all redacted in the first set) that was time-stamped as having occurred at 3:33. Maybe that passage showed up in what Perry initially reviewed — it would be a reasonable explanation for her belief there were big technical problems — except if so, then the transcript (the 7-minute anomaly I wrote about here) has been doctored.
The Boutros inconsistency I find far more intriguing wouldn’t have shown up in the redacted transcripts, either, and so couldn’t be the explanation for Judge Perry’s misimpression. It also doesn’t show up in the transcripts Boutros references in his court filing, but for a different reason entirely. For his filing, Boutros cites to the docket number of the unredacted transcripts that were released, docket number 219 (October 9), 220 (October 16), and 221 (October 23).
Boutros ignores the transcript showing politicization
But as far as I see, Boutros never cites to the subsection of FBI Agent Evan Hylton’s October 9 testimony that was released on June 18, nine days after the other transcripts, docket number 230.
Whereas Boutros relies on the sworn testimony of the ICE goon to describe what (the ICE goon claims) happened to him, the US Attorney does not rely on Hylton’s sworn testimony to describe how the investigation proceeded, relying instead on William Hogan’s claims of how it went down. In effect, Boutros’ narrative recreates the original redaction of Hylton’s testimony, hiding — for example — that Mecklenburg and Hylton showed the videos (and individual screen caps of the targets) during the section Boutros studiously avoids mentioning, not “the prosecutors,” plural.
She gave her “summary”— which she reiterated was “not evidence” or “testimony”—before facing technical issues. Id. at 5- 9.
In addition to the Case Agent testifying, the prosecutors played two videos showing different angles of the incident from September 26, 2025. Id. at 14-16. After Case Agent’s testimony, the grand jurors asked factual questions about, for example, Agent A’s interview and his thought process, whether Agent A could have stopped the vehicle, and whether other cars were around. Id. at 11-19. [my emphasis]
This silence speaks volumes.
Boutros makes expansive claims in his filing that there is no evidence of politicization, citing to Judge Perry’s decision on that point before she looked at any transcripts. Yet there’s a good deal of evidence of politicization in the Hylton transcript. In it, Hylton describes not identifying the most culpable people crowding the SUV at Broadview and trying to identify them, but instead finding Kat Abughzaleh’s post from the event and networking out from there.
So let’s go to — in searching the internet, did law enforcement find that an individual using the name Kat Abughazaleh —
MS. MECKLENBURG: And I’ll give you the spelling, court reporter, before I go.
BY MS. MECKLENBURG: Q. had posted a video of the incident on her social media?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you looked further at this individual’s social media, did law enforcement discover that she had posted a different video from the Broadview facility the morning of the incident before it started?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that posted on her own social media, in fact, her Instagram channel?
Hylton’s testimony is pretty damning to Boutros’ claim there was not politicization, because a whole bunch of right wingers RTed the Abughazaleh post described in that testimony. Mike Davis, who is reported to be close to Todd Blanche’s fixer, Aakash Singh (the guy whom Boutros is trying to protect by invoking Trump v. US), even RTed it and @ed Andrew Boutros, ordering him to prosecute Abughazaleh and her “co-conspirators.”
FBI Agent Hylton’s testimony is perfectly consistent with having done just that — having done just what private citizen and far right nutjob Mike Davis ordered Boutros to do. He took Abughazaleh’s post, investigated the protest with her as a focal point, and then Mecklenburg charged them with a conspiracy, in spite of the fact that some or most of them walked away after the SUV drove into them.
Hylton’s testimony is all the more damning given a confession in Boutros’ filing. Having told one of the defense attorneys that he had no communications about what to charge, Boutros backtracks somewhat, stating that no one told him what investigative steps to take or what charges to file, a confession that could be consistent with acting on Davis’ tweeted order. After denying following orders in pursuing this prosecution, Boutros explains that — just a day after Aakash Singh buddy Mike Davis ordered him, Andrew Boutros, to charge Abughazaleh and her “co-conspirators,” — there was a virtual meeting on September 27 attended by people from Main Justice and his office (and another office on the West Coast), where “a public video” from Broadview was played.
15 On July 15, 2026, counsel for one of the former Defendants sent an email to the U.S. Attorney’s Office asking whether the Office “still stands” behind its assertion that there were “no communications” “with anyone outside the USAO” regarding “who and what to charge” or its “investigatory or charging decisions.” R. 110 at 3 (bold in original, italics added). The Front Office is not aware of any communications in which it took direction from anyone outside the U.S. Attorney’s Office regarding its decisions as to what investigatory steps the local prosecution team would take or who the local prosecution team would charge when prosecutors went into the grand jury to indict this case. Out of an abundance of caution, the Office notes there was a virtual meeting on September 27, 2025, among Main Justice lawyers, the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office, lawyers from at least one other U.S. Attorney’s Office on the West Coast, and many federal law enforcement agencies where the September 26 “Broadview” incident was mentioned (and a public video played) as part of a broader discussion of incidents and conduct against ICE during that time. To the Front Office’s knowledge, the virtual meeting did not mention the identity or political affiliation of any person. It was only later when Chicago FBI agents assigned to the case began investigating the matter that the Office learned the identity of some of the people involved in the incident. Moreover, as would be expected in the normal course, there were discussions between the Office and Main Justice regarding such things as case updates, especially given the publicity the case generated after it had been charged. These privileged discussions are not only permitted but are contemplated. See supra 19; In re United States, 398 F.3d at 618 (“How the United States reaches its litigating positions, who said what to whom within the prosecutor’s office, and so on, are for the Attorney General and the President to evaluate. The Judicial Branch is limited to assessing counsel’s public deeds.”). [my emphasis]
Then, just days later on September 30, Hylton started investigating by networking out to people with some digital tie to Abughazaleh, rather than trying to identify the people who genuinely obstructed the SUV. Hylton did not let the evidence drive the investigation but instead let Abughazaleh’s network do so.
Q. It does. Are these videos — are these videos that law enforcement obtained from public sources?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. So, in other words, people posted these videos and that’s how law enforcement was able to get them, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Were they posted and/or tagged by people who have identified themselves or law enforcement has identified as being present during the September incident?
A. Yes.
Q. And by other people as well?
A. Yes.
That’s part of what Boutros avoids comment on by exercising his right to remain silent about Hylton’s testimony. The other part, as I said, involves the most interesting technical difficulties.
Boutros ignores the thumb drive/E-drive problem
As I noted here, Boutros implies that the very first technical problems appeared on pages 5 to 9 of the October 9 transcript.
He cites a five page passage, from page 5 to page 9. But the only thing that obviously reflects a technical issue — besides Mecklenburg waiting before she turned on her own computer — is an exchange on page 9 where the court reporter interrupts to help Mecklenburg plug in and turn on her own computer.
THE COURT REPORTER: I will just activate your computer. Set it up real quick.
There is a USB behind the monitor.
MS. MECKLENBURG: I think this is going to work. We’ll find out. Okay.
That’s the sum total of any claimed technical difference in that first appearance, the court reporter helping Mecklenburg set up her own computer. There were sixteen pages redacted.
In fact, that single page of technical difficulty — if you can claim that turning on your own computer is a technical difficulty — continues well into the Hylton testimony, the transcript Boutros doesn’t cite, so he should have cited that other transcript too.
It starts when Mecklenburg explains the reason she would go onto have technical difficulties, the reason why she didn’t know you could just plug your computer into the USB cord.
“I don’t usually bring my computer.”
So I’m going to make sure my computer is up, you know I don’t usually bring my computer, and get it going. You want to get — do you want to get him?
[snip]
Okay. Let’s see what I got. You know this makes me very concerned. This is what I was worried about. Nothing is coming — my documents won’t come up. I might have to do it from the agent or — I can’t get anything.
Unbelievable. Let’s see if this will work. I have it on a disk, which doesn’t play as well, but we’ll all have to get through it, and I will get right to you, agent. Okay.
THE COURT REPORTER: I will just activate your computer. Set it up real quick. There is a USB behind the monitor.
MS. MECKLENBURG: I think this is going to work. We’ll find out. Okay.
Something led Mecklenburg to do something different, do a grand jury presentation from her computer as opposed to (I assume) Elmo, what prosecutors generally use in trials.
The beginning of Hylton’s testimony starts normally enough: he briefly describes his background, explains his supervisor ordered him to investigate the Broadview 6 incident, and Mecklenburg makes him explain how he knows what he’ll testify to.
Then, she has him attest to video.
Q. Have you viewed the video that had been marked as Incident — that have been marked as Government — Grand Jury Exhibit Video Passenger Side and Front and Grand Jury Exhibit Video Driver’s Side and Front.
She then introduces a thumb drive that has the exhibits for the presentation, the exhibits Hylton has just walked over from the FBI.
You and I have gone over the exhibits for today, correct?
A That is correct.
Q. And those exhibits have been put on a stick that we’re using that has been marked as Grand Jury Exhibit 1, right?
(Document marked as Grand Jury Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)
BY THE WITNESS:
A. Yes.
BY MS. MECKLENBURG: Q. And are those exhibits – were you able to see that those exhibits were just carried right over from evidence that was provided by the FBI?
A. Yes.
Referring back to the main transcript, that “stick” is the sole exhibit introduced that day.
As Sheri Mecklenburg started to present the two videos used with the grand jury on October 9 — the two main videos used with the grand jury — she complains that she can’t get the videos working.
And then, having just admitted that “I don’t usually bring my computer” and having Hylton validate the evidence on a stick, she describes she’s actually running the presentation from the E-drive, or maybe a stick.
MS. MECKLENBURG: So I’m going to play these straight through. One is pretty short and the other a little longer, but I want you first to see what happened. Then we’ll go through when we identify people slow and snip bits, and I will point them out. So I will just play it for you.
At least I hope I am. It’s not going to work. I didn’t think so. If this doesn’t play, I’ll have you pull up your computer and do it. Let’s not fool around. We’re running out time.. Can you play the two videos for us?
Because it’s on the E drive and not my computer.
I’m sorry. Hang on. Don’t play it yet. It’s my fault. It’s on the E drive. It’s on the stick. I forgot. I don’t have a mouse here. So it’s taking me a little bit. There we go. This should do it. Okay.
This, one of the most extended instances of technical difficulty in any transcript, reveals Mecklenburg may have been using some other presentation than the one on the thumb drive, the one introduced into evidence, by accessing the E-drive from the computer that she (unusually) brought with her to the grand jury.
The Kat Abughazaleh video not introduced into evidence
And that matters, because Mecklenburg showed photos and videos that were not obviously introduced into evidence, not by exhibit number, and not by video reference.
In the first part of Mecklenburg’s colloquy with Hylton, she formally introduces into evidence the same exhibits she later has the ICE goon introduce on October 23, which are reflected in the table of contents for that later appearance. She describes entering exhibits 13, 15, 16, 18, 36, 41, 42, 48, 49, 38, 39, 44 into evidence. (As compared to what she showed two weeks later, she seems to skip photos 17 and 38).
But then later, she introduces things — including what sounds like the video Abughazaleh posted, the one a bunch of right wingers, including Aakash Singh buddy Mike Davis, RTed, demanding charges — that she does not introduce as evidence, but instead sometimes references by page number.
Q. Yes. Okay. Let’s take a look, — is this the video that law enforcement observed of Kat Abughazaleh on her Instagram account?
A. Yes.
Q. And did that – is that the video where she said she was at 25th and Harvard?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this an accurate picture that you know of of Kat Abughazaleh?
A. Yes.
Q. I’ll play it. It’s only a few seconds. (Whereupon, a video was played.)
BY MS. MECKLENBURG: Q. Did law enforcement find additional known videos of Kat Abughazaleh?
A. Yes.
Q. I’m going to go to page 45. And I am showing you what on page ·· I’m looking at what is the comparison photos, page 4, and then I’m going to show you.one on page 5, which is from the video, and ask you if those are known photos of Kat Abughazaleh?
A. Yes.
Mecklenburg describes “law enforcement” “posting” stills from the video.
Q. Did law enforcement recognize Kat Abughazaleh as an individual who appeared the video of the incident?
A. Yes.
Q. Did law enforcement then post stills of Ms. Abughazaleh from her video? A. Yes.
Q. I’m sorry. Let me back up. From the video of the incident?
A. That is correct.
She even misstates at one point, suggesting law enforcement posted about it rather than Abughazaleh, before correcting herself.
Q. Did law enforcement – did Ms. Abughazaleh also post on her social media that she was part of the incident on September 26, 2025?
A. She did.
Q. And I’m going to show you now a posting. This was found on her social media oops. Sorry.
On her own social media, correct?
Again, none of these photos or social media posts are introduced into evidence as exhibits like the photo — Exhibit 39 — of the word “PIG” allegedly scratched onto the back of the vehicle, nor do I see where she introduced her presentation as a whole (though she does explain the typos in Michael Rabbitt’s and Brian Straw’s names are due to the fact that she wrote it late the night before).
And it continues, with one after another of Mecklenburg’s targets, descriptions of posts and photos and press conferences, none of which are individually introduced as exhibits.
There may be twenty pieces of evidence Mecklenburg relies on, which show how these targets were chosen not because they were culpable in obstructing this SUV that drove into them, but because they had a tie to Kat Abughazaleh or spoke out against the SUV incident. She even describes how Joselyn Walsh was identified by Googling “guitar girl Broadview ICE,” which would bring you to this Facebook post, describing how a rubber bullet went through Walsh’s guitar and hit her in her leg.
This was Hylton’s explanation, as elicited by Mecklenburg, as to how Walsh got charged: someone knew to Google for a post about her complaints of being shot.
DOJ dropped charges against Walsh in March, before abandoning the rest of the charges.
I see no record any of this was ever introduced as evidence.
We’ve been assuming that William Hogan redacted these transcripts to hide Mecklenburg’s misconduct … and no doubt that was part of it.
But what if he redacted them to hide the politicization? What if the “IT issues” he was trying to hide were the difficulties Mecklenburg narrated in real time, switching back and forth from the thumb drive, which was entered into evidence, and whatever she presented from her E-drive, which was not?
Hogan was happy to provide transcripts … but not exhibits
There are a few more data points to suggest that William Hogan was corruptly trying to hide this colloquy in addition to all Mecklenburg’s other misconduct. They started to flip out, in escalating steps, when she asked for exhibits, not just transcripts.
As I’ve laid out, Boutros claims that he and his prosecutors were responding to the order that Judge Perry first gave on April 9. That invited prosecutors to submit, ex parte, just “relevant portions” of the transcripts.
To the extent the Government does not object to an ex parte in camera review of the transcripts, the relevant portions of the transcripts as outlined in the motion may be provided to the Court by 4/20/2026 in lieu of a written response.
The government asked for and got an extension — to, they claim, obtain the transcripts. In that request, they emphasize this will just be portions of the transcripts (remember, the first one was sent to Boutros in real time).
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits this unopposed motion for an extension of time until April 23, 2026, to provide the relevant portions of the grand jury transcripts to the Court for an in camera review.
[snip]
This extension will allow the government the opportunity to obtain all relevant transcripts to provide the Court, which it has been seeking to obtain. [my emphasis]
When DOJ submitted the transcripts, they claimed to be submitting all three transcripts, even while emphasizing, again, they were ordered just to provide “the relevant portions of the transcripts.” (As I’ve shown, they did not do so.) But then, having reviewed the redacted transcripts, Perry instructed the government to bring unredacted copies to the next in-person hearing. In granting that request, Judge Perry ordered something different: she ordered them to bring presentations, as well.
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: The Government’s motion to file grand jury transcripts under seal [128] is granted. This matter is set for a hearing 4/29/2026 at 10:30 a.m. in person in Courtroom 1725. The Government is asked to bring to the hearing fully un−redacted versions of the transcripts it has filed under seal (which currently contain redactions within the colloquy portions) as well as a copy of any presentation(s) or document(s) shown to the grand jurors summarizing the law. Mailed notice.
Read narrowly, such an order would only implicate the presentation Skiba did for the second and third grand jury session. That would have shown Skiba to be a raging MAGAt because of the way he relied on a totally inapt precedent only a frothy Trump supporter would know about. Read broadly, though, that would require bringing whatever Mecklenburg had on her E-drive, the social media posts showing this prosecution arose out of an attempt to target Abughazaleh.
That’s when DOJ decided to dismiss the felony conspiracy charge in an attempt to moot the request. When Chris Parente asked Hogan if he would bring the transcripts to that hearing, even though he claimed to be planning to dismiss the charges, Hogan refused.
The mootness argument did work, for about a day. But then the defense asked for the transcripts again because Hogan seemed so determined to keep them under wraps. This request asked for the transcripts and focused on the instruction, but it also asked for any “documents shown to the grand jury,” which again, might or might not include the stuff Mecklenburg had on her E-drive.
Moreover, given the government’s constantly shifting theories regarding the conspiracy charged in Count One and the Court’s order requiring production of the unredacted grand jury transcripts and, perhaps more importantly, the instructions of the law and documents shown to the grand jury regarding the law, the government’s tactic of bringing a superseding information but not immediately dismissing the indictment appears to evade the Court’s order and withhold the grand jury transcripts that the defense and, in many respects, the public at large have a compelling interest to see.
On May 18, Judge Perry ordered the government to give her the unredacted transcripts. That’s what led to the dramatic May 21 hearing where she revealed Mecklenburg’s vouching and conflicts with the jurors.
Chris Parente filed an emergency motion to preserve everything. He posted Hogan’s email (screen capped above) refusing to bring transcripts to the April 29 hearing, where he sought, and succeeded, in temporarily mooting the question of grand jury transcripts. Diane MacArthur, perhaps the one Chicago AUSA everyone involved still trusts, filed a notice of appearance and responded by saying that defendants no longer had standing to demand such things, and besides, everything would be preserved under the Federal Records Act. Terence Campbell, Andrew Martin’s attorney, replied basically saying, whoa, that was a remarkably touchy response … makes me want transcripts even more!
With each response, DOJ acted more and more paranoid.
At a hearing on May 26, MacArthur showed up and argued that DOJ was retaining a sufficient scope of materials to litigate this further.
When Tuesday’s hearing began, MacArthur told the judge she’d be handling the case from here on out.
“Thank you for volunteering as tribute,” Perry told MacArthur when court began.
MacArthur is a longtime, well-regarded veteran of the U.S. attorney’s office. She participated in the trials of former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan and ex-Chicago Ald. Edward M. Burke, which both ended with convictions for the once-powerful politicians.
Perry called Tuesday’s hearing to consider a request from Straw that she order prosecutors to preserve communications related to the grand jury proceedings.
Though prosecutors officially opposed such an order, MacArthur explained Boutros’ office had already taken multiple steps to preserve records from the case. She said a “litigation hold” was sought Saturday at the national Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
She said that triggered an indefinite hold on text messages, documents and notes relating to the grand jury and the decision by previous prosecutors to redact transcripts from the proceedings.
MacArthur said the hold applies to all former prosecutors on the “Broadview Six” case as well as three top leaders in Boutros’ office.
However, when defense attorneys sought an order from Perry that would have gone further — covering agents in the case — she told them she had questions about their ability to participate in the case going forward.
Based on the representations of MacArthur, Judge Perry denied the request for a preservation order.
And despite her representations that she would be handling the case going forward, that was the last that MacArthur has shown up in the docket. Days later, a guy who moved to Chicago from Indiana, Nathaniel Whalen, filed his notice of appearance, and he’s the only person besides Boutros on the attempt to evade sanctions.
And that’s when, having first exploited the credibility of the last trustworthy AUSA to defeat a motion to preserve and then dropping her from this team, Boutros invoked Trump v US specifically in his argument that the Broadview 6 are not entitled to discovery.
I don’t doubt there is far more than Boutros is trying to bury than why Mecklenburg entered a thumb drive into evidence then proceeded to rely on a file on her E-drive.
I suspect the communications between Mike Davis and Aakash Singh, by themselves, would display the malice behind this procesution.
But Andrew Boutros’ attempt to distract Judge April Perry by pointing to an orange light shining on Sheri Mecklenburg’s computer should only focus more attention on the tech difficulty he ignored, buried amid the evidence showing the selectivity of this prosecution: The E-drive never admitted into evidence.
The post Sheri Mecklenburg’s Tech Troubles: “It’s on the E drive. It’s on the stick.” appeared first on emptywheel.