Then yes, you potentially destroyed evidence and at least there is some evidence of corruption.
again, there is not "some evidence of corruption" when there is no evidence.
by your logic, there's "at least some evidence of" EVERYONE being a criminal. you might as well say "lasa potentially stole an apple (but we have 0% evidence of this happening), so there's at least some evidence of him being a criminal." how the actual fuck does this make sense?
If Lasa was a shop owner and he deleted his security tape every 30 days, but he shoots a "robber" and the police come to see the security tape to verify the store but lasa deleted the tape after only 7 days in that time period. There is potential evidence removed in a non normal way and is at least some evidence of corrupt behavior yes.
Good thing the emails were deleted after the proper amount of time passed, then ---
Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado