it (destruction of records) shows intent..its one method prosecutors use to show intentThere's a valid "presumption" in evidence that when one destroys or secrets documents (or other information) the content would be detrimental to the person destroying or secreting the information. In this case the documents she sought to "secret" or "destroy" (and the fact that she attempted secret or destroy them) can be offered to prove circumstantially that she "intended' to deceive the government in the investigation AND that she knew what she was doing was wrong.
the thing comey hung his hat on Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
Such things as destroying the gun used in a murder, running from the jurisdiction, and/or burning or shredding evidence are all used to prove "intent" and "knowledge" ....
Her problem is that to "rebut" that presumption she has to testify that she is an extraordinarily stupid and ignorant person .... and her admissions of her incompetence will not look good in a TV commercial published by the opposing candidate in an election.
Kinda like Bill's admission that his daughter would make a better president than his wife.....and that was before her brain injury.