Let’s say the gun was found in a barrel in the backyard of the accused and it was burned very badly. Of course, there would be no fingerprints on the gun and forensics wouldn't be able to tell if it was the gun used in the crime, but the jury can infer that it is. They can use common sense and basic reasoning in their jury deliberations that more than likely the person was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.
Hillary Clinton and her attorneys deleted around 35,000 emails before turning the rest of them over to the FBI (DOJ). Could you imagine the FBI allowing Trump and his attorneys to scrub emails before they turned over their email files? It wouldn't happen, it's absurd.
Then Clinton had her mobile devices permanently destroyed. She could've not deleted any emails as storage space certainly wasn't an issue and she could have easily kept the mobile devices available in case questions came up, but she didn't. Based on our criminal justice system, a prosecutor and/or jury could infer she deleted everything because it would incriminate her.
Instead of Comey inferring anything, he threw that legal common sense out the window. Not only this, but he had a press conference where he went over issues like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sending and receiving classified information on a personal server and not following Federal Record Laws. He said that although she was guilty of these things, they wouldn’t prosecute because in their opinion, she didn't mean to do it.
Keep in mind that Democrats kept trying to spin it that Hillary was innocent because the DOJ wouldn’t prosecute, but it was a lie; they said she was guilty but didn’t mean to do it. This wouldn’t happen in our world. A prosecutor would take any of us down for what Hillary did, whether we meant to do it or not.
What I’d like to know is why Comey didn’t think Clinton meant to do any of the things that he said were violations? Exactly what evidence did he have that supported she didn't mean to do it, or she didn't know better? He didn't present evidence that she didn’t mean to do it; even if he had, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Normally, someone would "Infer" that she did mean to skirt around the laws, because she destroyed evidence. She said it wasn't anything that would incriminate her but how do we know? She didn’t keep the information available, so it could be viewed if necessary. If you were being investigated and were innocent, wouldn't you keep everything around possible, for protection? She didn’t because she wasn’t. It’s that simple and I’d debate any liberal over the topic.
Hillary's Benghazi and email investigations are some of the greatest miscarriages of justice I've seen in all my life. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, it's time that elitists from both political parties follow the same laws of the land that we do and that they are processed in the same judicial system. We’ve let Congress and Senate handle these things and we’ve seen nothing but corruption by both parties as the hearings turn into circuses that hardly ever lead to true justice.