Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal

•

A space to share my interests and concerns. All opinions are my own, and my research is provided in good faith. Please refer to the disclaimer or use the contact form for any questions or concerns.

Jon McGreevy and Whistleblower Headlines: Why the “Chain of Custody” for Devices is Everything

In the digital age, a laptop or a USB drive is often treated as the “smoking gun.”

From the infamous Anthony Weiner and Hunter Biden laptops to the Seth Rich and Jeffrey Epstein cases, we’ve seen how physical hardware can shift national narratives.

But here is the critical question: Can we always trust the data on the device?

The case of Jon McGreevy offers a sobering perspective on digital integrity.

McGreevy, who worked undercover for then-US Attorney Rod Rosenstein in 2015, became a central figure in the Sharyl Attkisson surveillance case.

McGreevy was named as a defendant and allegedly admitted to computer tampering.

He claimed that a specialized team under Rosenstein engaged in “dirty tricks,” which included tampering with Hillary Clinton’s emails before they were linked to Russia.

In July 2025, a citizen named Sean Maguire, a strong supporter of McGreevy, claimed to have been given his computer and phones.

Keep in mind that McGreevy made some powerful enemies with his claims. He was relentlessly hounded during his lifetime and died two years earlier of “blunt force trauma” just after signing a dubious “apology” for claims that politically jeopardized the local sheriff.

So how likely is it that his extremely valuable devices were simply handed over, in pristine form, to a supporter who was also loud on social media?

Consider this: Whatever was in them upon receipt, it was enough to make Maguire stop publicly supporting McGreevy.

If digital evidence can be planted, altered, or manipulated before it reaches the public eye, the device itself becomes a vessel for misinformation rather than a source of truth.

When “recovered” devices are used to drive headlines, we must ask:

  1. Who had access to the hardware?
  2. Is there a verified, unbroken chain of custody?
  3. Is the data being used to inform, or to engineer a specific public reaction?

In a world of sophisticated digital forensics, the most dangerous weapon isn’t the data itself—it’s the ability to fool the public into believing it’s untampered.

(Written with the help of AI. Picture of McGreevy computer via Sean Maguire on X.)