9/11 Commissioner Expert on Destruction of Evidence


I've written several essays arguing that the destruction of 9/11 evidence by the government is proof of guilt (see, for example, this and this).

Attorney William Sumner Scott has done the same, in an article entitled "Evidence Destruction Raises Presumption of Guilt":

"As all lawyers are taught, destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt against the person who did that. Bush and Cheney led the government intervention and destruction of the evidence at the 9/11 scenes. Accordingly, it is Bush and Cheney who must prove the causes of 9/11 or suffer the claim made by a growing number of people each day that the 9/11 events were an inside job."

Well, it turns out that 9/11 Commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick is an expert on destruction of evidence. She has, literally, written the book on the subject.

Commissioner Gorelick is well aware of the fact that destruction of evidence is usually a crime. She also knows that destroying evidence and obstructing justice tend to show that someone has a guilty mind.

Why hasn't Commissioner Gorelick publicly stated that the government's destruction of evidence related to 9/11 and obstruction of justice in connection with the 9/11 investigation is proof of government wrongdoing? As an expert on the topic, she knows the score.