Yeah, so the guy happened to do a git clone a few weeks before he left the company, that may have been related to work, and now gets this. I don't know about the "covering his tracks" part though.
I get the point you're trying to make and Google is rather vague on details, but I highly doubt it was as simple as a git clone. If for no other reason, it's generally considered an anti-pattern to have 10gb of content in a repo (not including revisions, but just content).
They were also very specific in the legal documents about how he "covered his tracks", I'd recommend reading it rather than the cliff notes version linked here.
They were also very specific in the legal documents about how he "covered his tracks", I'd recommend reading it rather than the cliff notes version linked here.