That means nothing except his email account was hacked and put on a random laptop, which is what happened. They're free to delete any emails they like, or even add some as long as you don't check every single one.
> means nothing except his email account was hacked and put on a random laptop, which is what happened
I've never seen this suggested, certainly not in any official communication by the relevant parties.
It would be a weird evidentiary standard to construct highly complex, even far out defenses, for someone accused of dubious conduct that must be defeated when they won't even put their own credibility on the line in arguing them themselves.
> They're free to delete any emails they like
Absolutely, but that doesn't do anything to answer validated emails which are concerning on their own, in isolation.
Why release a statement about what's either an intelligence op (if it's a hack) or a CFAA violation (as reading someone's email on their laptop probably is)? And you can't say finding someone's abandoned laptop is just finders keepers, everything on earth is a CFAA violation. It's nice and open ended like that.
Note before it was "found" there was already a pseudonymous report written about some of its contents.
