That’s cool if I ever get subpoena for a let’s say lanlord tenant lawsuit , email I’ll remember to just have my lawyer delete it and then claim it was personal.
True… That’s my mistake here
At least one anyhow 
No attorney in their right mind would do that. Not only would there be case related sanctions, the attorney would potentially open themselves to censure or disbarment, their law firm’s reputation would be trashed, and they would open themselves up to lawsuits for attorney malpractice. That’s why law firms are used for these type of things. That and it’s REALLY hard to completely obliterate all email traces. I did a post on this for Ancient Erudite a bit ago, let me see if I can dig it up. Ah, here it is: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21447568#post21447568
I can think of one who would (and who used to work for Trump).
But you’re right, legitimate lawyers like the ones Clinton hired wouldn’t do that
That was an excellent post, and I think your conclusion is pretty much the same conclusion that the factcheck link that Littleman posted indicates:
This is, of course, a far cry from Littleman’s characterization that Clinton “destroy[ed] evidence requested in an investigation, clearly obstruction.”
It Is hard, but in this case the FBI either couldn’t recover them or simply declined to recover them.
I think we’ve seen plenty of cases of lawyers who’ve done just such things.
However I doubt I’ve got enough money or power to convince one.
Well, in the absence of evidence let’s just assume she committed a crime. How about…sex trafficking through a pizza shop basement?
Right, emails do not just exist on one party’s server. They would exist in the mailboxes of anyone that sent or received anything from her.
All it would take would be one relevant email that was not included in the emails that were turned over to make the case.
That, after umpteen investigations over a dog’s age, not a single email of that sort turned up should have shut down this line of accusation.
Since you seem to want to dwell on Hillary Clinton in threads that aren’t really about Hillary Clinton, have you ever considered starting your own thread about Hillary Clinton?
So clearly any Democrat is just gonna open a can of worms.
Anybody that can think of a republican who was high level and investigated in recent times to draw a comparison to?
Maybe one who got away and one who didn’t?
Something that might help speculate the results here?
Or is there no example that could contribute?
Gotta be somebody worth drawing comparison with.
Even at a little lower levels… I know this introduces flaw because we are probably not talking president or presidential candidate but at the same time it might introduce less media bias too.
“Drawing comparison” = Changing the subject.
That’s pretty much what is going on here.
I don’t really care who it is.
Anyone we can draw a comparison with?
Even as a general relation to how these political investigations typically play out?
Given how long this Board has existed, he may even invite himself to peruse the many, many Hillary Clinton threads which already exist so he may have an idea as to our thoughts when she was… you know… relevant.
What happened here wasn’t “opening a can of worms”. What happened here was “you making false claims and us correcting you”. You could have avoided this by restricting yourself to factually true statements.
Oh my fucking god are we seriously doing “BUT HER EMAILS” again?!
WHY?!
It has been two cunt-gargling years since Hillary Clinton has been anything even resembling relevant in national politics. Why is this a subject? Why is it even being brought up? Are we doing a “stupid conspiracy theories from two years ago” revival or some shit? The FBI investigated, opted not to prosecute (not even under the Trump administration, fancy that shit), it cost her the election, this was the most overplayed, overhyped non-fucking-story in history at the end of 2016, just let it die. Let’s react to the kind of people who still insist on bringing this shit up the way we react to the folks who are big on Vince Foster. “Wow, what is actually wrong with you?”
Nixon.
FYI, he stepped down to avoid impeachment and died in disgrace.
Oh ok, well then your free to speculate without bothering with precedent.
That makes it about exactly a 50/50 chance of any conclusion you wish.
Drawing that comparison was also a problem.
I’d concluded based on that one that if Mueller comes up with anything short of a taped confession were probably looking at a loong played out argument of interpretation of the evidence.
But everyone was like OMG Nixon… really .
What’s the weather like in St. Petersburg, tovarisch?
Some of that too since yeah some of the things i thought were true definitely arent. Some party bias too since every single bit of actual info was of course interpreted in democratic favor.
I’d expect the same from a republican dominated forum though so… Should have known better there too.