Unlike the financial investigations, which will require forensic accountants to unwind complex transactions, the document shredding gives investigators comparatively simple cases of possible obstruction of justice. In such cases,
witnesses are confronted, evidence is collected, the law is checked, and the decision whether to seek an indictment is made.
And I just noodlin here, but I think this twit, Eichenwald, is 100% wrong again.
His point is that it is easier to pursue a document destruction contempt case that a case of accounting misfeasance.
He says that because he neither understands accounting or obstruction of justice.
Most probably, it will be reinterated that a person may do what ever he wants to with his own property, unless he is under a court order not to do so.
No subpoena had been issued, THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER.
Maybe the New York Times could make this guy the fashion editor. AA is a big, smart savvy group of people, who are playing the law they ALLEGEDLY bought, to the fullest extent possible. |
