> They didn't ask employees to destroy evidence but to avoid retaining evidence in the first place.
Once evidence exists, not retaining it involves deleting it. So you’ve simply rephrased what they are accused of and framed it as if that is a denial.
Which, you know, is kind of all there is to spin with when there are no favorable facts, but why spin for Google?
Once evidence exists, not retaining it involves deleting it. So you’ve simply rephrased what they are accused of and framed it as if that is a denial.
Which, you know, is kind of all there is to spin with when there are no favorable facts, but why spin for Google?