Regarding
"If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available."(4th paragraph)
I am confused.

Does it mean if the Constitution prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government was obligated to throw away updated evidence???

Context
The Justice Department attorneys prosecuting Roger Stone -- who no longer work under special counsel Robert Mueller -- defended the special counsel's investigation of President Donald Trump Friday, saying it inherently did not hamper his ability to lead the country.

The argument came amid a series of filings Friday night in Stone's case, in which prosecutors pushed back on the longtime Trump ally's legal attacks on Mueller and the criminal charges he faces. Stone has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and asked the court to dismiss them.

"While the Department of Justice's position is that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,' it also takes the position that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible," the prosecutors wrote.

If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available. Nor, it would seem, could the government conduct an investigation that may clear the President of alleged wrongdoing."

Question

Regarding 
"If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available."(4th paragraph)
I am confused.

Does it mean if the Constitution prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government was obligated to throw away updated evidence???

Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Justice Department attorneys prosecuting Roger Stone -- who no longer work under special counsel Robert Mueller -- defended the special counsel's investigation of President Donald Trump Friday, saying it inherently did not hamper his ability to lead the country.

The argument came amid a series of filings Friday night in Stone's case, in which prosecutors pushed back on the longtime Trump ally's legal attacks on Mueller and the criminal charges he faces. Stone has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and asked the court to dismiss them.

"While the Department of Justice's position is that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,' it also takes the position that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible," the prosecutors wrote.

If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available. Nor, it would seem, could the government conduct an investigation that may clear the President of alleged wrongdoing."

cmertb · Accepted Answer

I think this is just very poorly worded, and that's why it's confusing. A more proper wording, instead of "the government could not preserve", would have been "the government might not preserve" or "the government could choose not to preserve".

EDIT: fixed typo

EDIT: fixed typo

Deb_in_USA · Answer

Documents that are generated by the President and those in his administration cannot be legally destroyed. If they were destroyed to prevent an investigator from discovering details of a crime, that destruction is a crime called "obstruction of justice".

However, before being elected, a presidential campaign has to preserve campaign finance documents, but not other documents. For instance, if someone in the campaign was discussing strategy with someone else in the campaign via email, this is private communication because these are civilians who after not performing a government job. The only reason for the government to get this kind of information is if the government is conducting a criminal investigation.

As to the Trump campaign investigation, the big question is why the investigation was launched in the first place. The government began spying on people in the campaign because of the Steele document, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign. THIS DOCUMENT may have been Russian disinformation itself. And the COURT who permitted the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign was never told that the STEELE DOCUMENT was campaign research by the opposing party, and that the contents of the Steele report HAD never been verified by any other source.

Another issue is when did the special prosecutor decide that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. It looks like THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR may have decided there was no collusion over a year before he concluded his investigation. Since his appointment was to specifically investigate collusion, why didn't he FINISH the investigation over a year earlier?

Deb_in_USA · Answer

I originally was trying to type my answer on my phone, but it was long and I made mistakes. So I went back and corrected some of my errors using upper case characters.

I think this is just very poorly worded, and that's why it's confusing. A more proper wording, instead of "the government could not preserve", would have been "the government might not preserve" or "the government could choose not to preserve".EDIT: fixed typo

I originally was trying to type my answer on my phone, but it was long and I made mistakes. So I went back and corrected some of my errors using upper case characters.

I think this is just very poorly worded, and that's why it's confusing. A more proper wording, instead of "the government could not preserve", would have been "the government might not preserve" or "the government could choose not to preserve".EDIT: fixed typo

Ask native speakers questions for free

I think this is just very poorly worded, and that's why it's confusing. A more proper wording, instead of "the government could not preserve", would have been "the government might not preserve" or "the government could choose not to preserve".

EDIT: fixed typo

I think this is just very poorly worded, and that's why it's confusing. A more proper wording, instead of "the government could not preserve", would have been "the government might not preserve" or "the government could choose not to preserve".

EDIT: fixed typo