The evidence was grabbed by the FBI. Once your evidence is out of your hands, you don't have a case. It becomes hearsay and no judge is going to be willing to hear it. . . and the FBI probably told them "We'll take it from here." and it disappears down the rabbit hole. Copies won't do. Originals are required for evidence.
We've been hearing reports from disgruntled NYPD detectives who are angry as hell that nothing has come of it. . . and are the ones saying the cried when the saw what was on there. But, what can they do? No evidence. It's gone.
One of them apparently sent a copy to Wikileaks. Thank God.
aS i UNDERSTOOD IT, the NYPD Commissioner insured they kept several copies of such laptop files. Though they may well have turned the original over to the FBI ... making it hard for the NYPD to field the case without the original evidence.
Yeah and Comey was the head of the FBI at the time. Maybe that is why President Trump fired Comey when he was in another state. That way they could seize anything still left in his office. Q has often mentioned how stupid these people have been and maybe Comey never destroyed the evidence.
CGato
I agree the case becomes weaker, maybe impossible based on missing evidence. But missing evidence doe not per se mean the fact the evidence is missing can't come in to the trial. The people who saw it (the evidence, before it went missing) can testify they saw it. That is not hearsay.
If the recording is the only evidence (well, recording plus the fact that some sworn officers saw it), and the recording is missing, a prosecutor would not bring a case. Not because there is literally no evidence, but because even though the recording was viewed, there is ample room for reasonable doubt the allegation is true.