…with deference to Mark Twain…
Recently-former-Senator John Ensign's (R-NV) affair and alleged attempts to cover it up would normally be fodder for the press – and I'd take little notice of it. However, with the release of the Senate Ethics Committee Panel report, we find this:
"The report also accuses Ensign of deleting documents and files the committee was likely to request. The senator deleted the contents of a personal email account after the investigation was launched, it says." [italics added]
"The committee's report describes Cynthia Hampton as running up $1,000 in phone bills by texting Ensign while he was traveling in Iraq with a congressional delegation."
I want to distinguish between the first quote and the second. The former is clearly in the realm of relevance (save for an attempted-but-likely-futile privilege argument against access to his personal email account), but the latter is an example of how 'beside-the-point' ESI becomes relevant. The affair may be morally wrong, but texts between the two players are private – or at least they would be, except for the likelihood that access to them might lead to relevant evidence that would tend to prove or disprove a material fact. Examples? Did they conspire to cover up the affair through means that would be deemed improper? Plus, who paid the phone bill?
This is how your personal cell, PDA or email account ends up in the hands of your adversaries. You're not immune.
What do you think the odds are that Sen. Ensign knew, or should have known that destroying evidence after learning of an investigation is at best sanctionable conduct and at worst, a crime?
This is how destruction turns into obstruction. Time to call "Aunt Judy"…or Judge Judy…