This time at the FEC:
The FEC has a far-reaching mandate into the operations of elections, which means that partisanship in that agency is particularly corrosive. The Hatch Act requires strict neutrality of all federal employees while on duty, and one would expect that to be particularly observed in the FEC. Instead, Sands tweeted partisan messages from her office in 2012; sent out fundraising pleas for Obama’s re-election campaign, called Republicans her “enemy,” and said they should shut up and “stand down.”
When the Inspector General came knocking, however, the evidence had vanished. The FEC “recycled” her hard drive, which meant that criminal charges could not be pursued. How exactly could this have happened? Sands was under suspicion of a crime under a statute which would be updated later that year, in a bill signed by Barack Obama himself. Shouldn’t the FEC have taken steps to secure evidence rather than destroy it?
Note her connection to Lois Lerner. It really is remarkable how fragile these devices are when confronted with a subpoena or investigation.
“Government” is just a word for “things we do together”, such as shoveling incriminating hard drives into an industrial metal shredder.
I can smell the flop sweat from here.
Surely it’s believable that the hard drives sprouted legs and walked into the metal shredder in a clear cut case of subpoena-induced suicide, without any human input whatsoever?
To any sensible person, the numerous recycling, or crashing of the disks of people under investigation over-strains credulity. Coincidence has been left behind long ago.
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”
One likely explanation is the huge numbers of viruses they are picking up, spending all that time on porn websites. Some of them are pretty bad, and can do a job on an OS. And we have plenty of reports of Feds spending a lot of time looking at porn.
So this lady admitted her guilt but they couldn’t prosecute her because the evidence was destroyed? I am not sure why the destruction of evidence would not be presumed as evidence of her guilt in the context of her already having admitted guilt. Sounds a lot like the people who are all law and order when it comes to claiming the Tea Party is a bunch of lawbreakers have a much looser view of the law when it comes to actual and admitted lawbreaking.