[canuck_conservative]

There is no comparison.

Actually, that's not quite true.

Both devices were evidence in an ongoing investigtion.

In both cases, the owner KNEW that the device was wanted by the investigators, and the destruction happened just as the devices were being called-for.

And in both cases, the justification for destruction was that there were "private & personal" stuff that the owner didn't want anyone else to see, so the whole device HAD to be destroyed, deliberately, there was no other choice.

Comparisons are valid.

[detective]

You don’t seem to understand.

Tom Brady refused to provide personal and private information that he was not required to provide under the collective bargaining agreement.

He did nothing wrong.

Hillary Clinton illegally destroyed official government documents and lied about it.

She committed a crime.

That is like saying that a person who drives on certain street and does nothing wrong is the same as someone who drives on the same street and kills someone in a hit and run.

Tom Brady acted within his rights under the agreement and did nothing wrong. Hillary Clinton committed numerous crimes.

[SuzyQue]

“In both cases, the owner KNEW that the device was wanted by the investigators, and the destruction happened just as the devices were being called-for.”

Wrong. Brady was told that the phone would not be requested and he had it destroyed.

[Leto]

Actually Brady was expressly told the phone wasn’t needed. The NFL admitted this in court. Try to at least know the facts before making a dumb statement.

Just another butthurt Seahawks fan.