Imo it is not controversial that intent to destroy evidence is ilegal is most reasonable jurisdictions.

Now, is this what's at stake here? Evidence of what? Surely at some point, clear allegations need to me made for which the content of the phone is evidence for.

There's alot of speculation of what the indicted person was involved in, or motives of the border agents. Or the insinuation that the tooling that allowed the alleged destruction of evidence is (or should be) ilegal or indications of nefarious intent by those who use such tools. This is all BS.

Am I missing something?