Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats The Internet Communications Crime Government Network Social Networks Software News IT Politics Technology

Oversight Orders Reddit To Preserve Deleted Posts In Clinton Investigation (thehill.com) 382

HockeyPuck writes: The House Oversight Committee has ordered Reddit to preserve deleted posts believed to be written by Paul Combetta, an IT technician the committee suspects may have deleted Hillary Clinton emails that were under subpoena. This follows up on an earlier report on reddit users' findings. Reddit users found that Combetta, through the username "StoneTear," requested help in relation to retaining and purging email messages after 60 days, and requested advice on how to remove a "VERY VIP" individual's email address from archived content. The Hill says in its report: "It's unclear what, exactly, the committee will be able to learn from the information Reddit preserves. According to the company's public policy for handling official requests, it maintains basic subscriber information, like IP logs, which identify the computer used to access a site. According to the policy, Reddit can maintain deleted records -- like a user's account -- for 90 days if it receives an official preservation order. Otherwise, the information will be subject to Reddit's 'normal retention or destruction schedules.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oversight Orders Reddit To Preserve Deleted Posts In Clinton Investigation

Comments Filter:
  • Popcorn. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @09:04AM (#52937901)

    Both sides are a shit show in their own special ways. At this point I just want a comfy chair and some popcorn.

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      Between the two, I'm personally enjoying the absolute and complete clusterfuck known as the Clinton campaign. If they're not trying to declare a war on memes, they have incompetent IT people who are trying to break the law or actually breaking the law.

    • Sorry, you're not allowed to afford a comfy chair and popcorn. That would flaunt too much success [for a peon], so your resources are being confiscated to:
      1. Pay for someone's socialistic wet dream
      2. Pay for domestic spying, war and cronyism

      Unfortunately, there is no option three. You cannot keep what you have earned.

    • Re:Popcorn. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo AT world3 DOT net> on Thursday September 22, 2016 @09:44AM (#52938165) Homepage Journal

      Not really though. Clinton screwed up on email and arguably Benghazi, Trump's list is about a mile long. What Clinton did is just the usual politician fuck up kind of thing, Trump is way more dangerous.

      The problem is that it's just like Brexit. The more you point out that it's a terrible idea and sure to end in disaster, the more people reject expert advice and facts and go with their feelings. GOP politicians have even started arguing that feelings are more important than facts now, like crime is down but people feel that it's up because there is so much media coverage and sensationalizing, so let's create a police state to make them warm and fuzzy inside.

      • Re:Popcorn. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@nosPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday September 22, 2016 @10:00AM (#52938291) Homepage

        Yeah. You've got no idea what you're talking about, what Clinton did was nothing short of criminal. What the people around here did, was nothing short of criminal. Going as far as pleading the 5th. What Trump has done is by far be a businessman and run with his mouth and actually listen to voters. Something that some politicians in the UK have done(which is why the brexit succeeded despite the politicians, the media, the political elite all saying "it's in the bag for us." In other cases, they decided to trot out the police and engage in police-state like activities like "paying visits" to people who post wrong think, and threatening them with hate speech if the police don't like what they're posting.

        • Re:Popcorn. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo AT world3 DOT net> on Thursday September 22, 2016 @10:28AM (#52938575) Homepage Journal

          Are you saying that Trump University wasn't a scam designed to take people's money? He claims he personally vetted all the teaching staff.

        • Oh, get over yourself. What Clinton did was bog-standard "shadow IT". It's an issue in any and every large organization, and becomes especially prevalent as the company ages. It happens because, as they have to support more and more people with the same resources, IT people tend to become less helpful and more reliant on policies, procedures, and standardized lists of supported hardware and software; and these wind up not adequately fulfilling the needs of the users. And don't imagine you're immune. If

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by networkBoy ( 774728 )

            That is a true statement, but what sets Clinton apart is that her actions had a *direct* impact on national security.
            She doesn't get the choice of shadow IT.
            End. Of. Story.
            -nb

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        and go with their feelings.

        But when presented with matters of social justice, "women in the work force", safe spaces and all of the rest of your rhetoric you "reject expect advice and facts and go with [your] feelings"?

        GOP politicians have even started arguing that feelings are more important than facts now,

        I'm just going to bookmark this comment for the next time you want a safe space for you and your cohort's feelings.

        Clinton screwed up

        everything she's touched back to before Bill was a governor?

    • by bulled ( 956533 )
      There is no such thing as a comfy chair left in the US from which to observe the shit show.
  • And then when questioned joke about wiping them with a cloth.

  • by LichtSpektren ( 4201985 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @09:16AM (#52937965)
    At this point it's really important that Combetta is put on suicide watch and given a bodyguard. A lot of people affiliated with the Clintons end up in, how do you say... "unusual circumstances", like getting murdered by a 'robber' that actually didn't take anything, or 'committing suicide' by shooting themselves in the back twice.
    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      Don't worry, I'm sure he'll end up dead in a botched robbery, with two bullets to the back of his head and all of his possessions still on him.

  • by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @09:31AM (#52938065) Homepage

    It's unclear what, exactly, the committee will be able to learn from the information Reddit preserves

    or why it would be applicable to a closed criminal investigation that resulted in no indictment and no charges. at this point its just a political fishing expedition to slander the character of a presidential candidate thats already generally reviled by Americans yet unaccountably still able to secure her parties candidate nomination.

    maybe if republicans had spent the time it took to conduct four hearings into benghazi more prudently by...say...building a functional candidate and forming meaningful foreign and domestic policy that address genuine issues in the upcoming decade, we wouldnt be stuck voting for a criminal in a twelve thousand dollar potato sack that lectures ad nauseum on the middle class.

    • a presidential candidate thats already generally reviled by Americans yet unaccountably still able to secure her parties candidate nomination.

      Yeah, I mean it's not like there were leaked emails from DNC officials that demonstrate that the whole nomination process was rigged in her favor from day 0.

      Is it sunny in that land of self-delusion you live in?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This has nothing to do with republicans and everything to do with more and more evidence surfacing about Hillary's criminal behavior. Everyone knows she committed the crimes but the reason there were no charges is because "they couldn't prove intent". I think this is a strong bit of evidence that proves intent, so now they will need to find a new story for why they can't charge her.

      If you think this is a political fishing expedition you need to look in the mirror for a while and think about how partisan y

    • by davide marney ( 231845 ) <[gro.aidemten] [ta] [yenram.edivad]> on Thursday September 22, 2016 @09:55AM (#52938245) Journal

      The relevance is that the FBI granted immunity to the only two people in this saga who knew what really happened to the government-owned records, and those people took the fifth when testifying. So, it looks like an official cover-up.

      FBI Director Comey said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would have prosecuted the case, yet he grants immunity from prosecution. Why? If no one is going to prosecute, then immunity makes no sense. The purpose of granting immunity to a small fish is so you can prosecute a bigger fish.

      Further, why have these IT folks gone even beyond their protection against immunity to refuse to testify? What could they possibly say that would be prosecutable? Nothing.

      Everyone is staying quiet. As long as no one says anything, everyone is protected.

      • It depends on what they say on the stand, and the level of immunity granted. (Keep in mind, that I am not a lawyer.)

        Okay, let's say, and why not, that you're called to testify about something IT related for your company. The prosecutor could choose to grant you immunity to prosecution for anything at all you that say on the stand, OR immunity to prosecution for anything that you say on the stand that is related to the case, OR not grant you immunity to prosecution at all.

        So, let's say your company was up to

        • Yes, that explains why the IT people would accept a deal, but not why the FBI would offer it.

          • It's so the person will be willing to tell you everything. Even if you don't have anything illegal to hide, it is almost often is in your best interest NOT to talk to the police/FBI/etc. It's why you should at minimum consult your lawyer before you do so, and only do so in conjunction with them/their legal advice. If you can negotiate a grant of immunity prior to doing so, that's your absolute best guarantee that the police/FBI/etc won't take something you said and misconstrue it, and wind up charging you o
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Who are you talking about? There is Pagliano, but he used the fifth before he was granted immunity so it's obvious that it was granted in order that he would stop doing that and help the investigation. He hasn't used it since.

        Who are these two people who used the fifth after getting immunity?

      • Bill Cosby was told he wouldn't be subject to prosecution by to Montgomery County, PA prosecutors. The current prosecutor chose to ignore those promises and it was upheld by the courts.

        In that light alone, I think it prudent for him not to testify despite given "immunity".

    • The biggest thing right now, from my understanding, is that Combetta had immunity, with the condition he did not hide or lie about anything. From my understanding he has now lost that. Now even if Hillary does not go to jail, her IT guy sure looks like he will.

    • by Jhon ( 241832 )

      "or why it would be applicable to a closed criminal investigation that resulted in no indictment and no charges. at this point its just a political fishing expedition to slander the character of a presidential candidate thats already generally reviled by Americans yet unaccountably still able to secure her parties candidate nomination. "

      A closed criminal investigation != acquittal. There's no double-jeopardy involved. If it's found she really *DID* lie to investigators and she really *DID* actively try to

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Because this is new evidence that may show someone lied to the court, or provide new avenues for charges?

      If this guy was asked "Did you delete emails?" and said no, this case is wide-open again because he could be found to be lying based on this discovery. If his competency was used as a factor in ensuring the regulations were met, that might be brought into question by experts if the court interprets this evidence in certain ways.

      Double-jeopardy doesn't apply if new evidence is brought in most countries.

      B

  • by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @09:35AM (#52938101) Journal

    Apparently from his reddit account he was in to furry shit. I really want the House Oversight Committee to ask him "sir, could you explain to the Committee what you meant by 'yiffing' in some of your comments?"

  • Hillary's for prison!

  • " like IP logs, which identify the computer used to access a site. "

    More like the router or VPN he's connected to.

  • I'm just laughing.

    A House Oversight Committee.

    To me, that just sounds like a committee that looks and sees what it can forget to check or do, not a committee that watches and manages a set of people.

    I know that, technically, the word also means to manage people but... that's not what I think when I read it.

    And the summary headline just makes it worse. It makes it sounds like it's happened by accident.

  • by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @11:00AM (#52938847)

    The posts show that the guy knew he was deleting stuff in the face of a direct order by the authorities not to do that. That means he's going to jail.

To err is human, to moo bovine.

Working...