6 ms·
Prosecution cannot claim anything without evidence. Now there’s only evidence of obstruction of justice by some IT manager, but no evidence to support charges o
by prebrov 9y ago
Prosecution cannot claim anything without evidence. Now there’s only evidence of obstruction of justice by some IT manager, but no evidence to support charges of election fraud by executive branch of government.
- askvictor 9y agoThere should be laws that give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution/litigant in situations like this. Not holding my breath though.
- colejohnson66 9y agoGiving the benefit of the doubt to the prosecutor goes against the “innocent until proven guily” ideology. You’re basically saying, “he unknowingly deleted evidence he didn’t know was evidence. That proves it’s a conspiracy because we now don’t have evidence to prove our case” It’s the reason cops are seen as immune to the law; The courts give them the benefit of the doubt a lot.
- idibidiart 9y agoDegaussing 3 times is not evidence of knowingly deleting evidence. I find that laughable.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoIt's clearly evidence of knowingly deleting data. It may not be evidence of knowingly deleting evidence. The distinction matters, because deleting data is not a crime.
- idibidiart 9y agoDegaussing 3 times. Who does that when deleting data? Unless they don't want investigators to find the data? And isn't the data in this case a public record? Why delete a public record indelibly unless they had manipulated that record and wanted to hide the fact..?
- colejohnson66 9y ago> Degaussing 3 times. Who does that when deleting data? The same kind of people who think they need 35 passes to wipe their hard drive.