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.'"
Popcorn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Both sides are a shit show in their own special ways. At this point I just want a comfy chair and some popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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?
Re:Popcorn. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Clinton screwed up on email and arguably Benghazi"
I'm sorry -- but there is a very long history of her "screw ups and lies". Whitewater ring a bell? I don't want to list them all out as I dont want to type a "mile long" worth of dirt.
Oh, but please do - because it's not so much a "mile long list" of dirt, so much as it is a mile long list of overhyped nothingburgers that Republicans repeatedly tried to turn into major scandals in an ongoing effort to destroy the Clintons politically. About the only respite from it was when Hillary was seen as a rival to Obama after she lost the primary to him in 2008. Once she became part of his cabinet though, it was "game on" again.
It's actually somewhat more telling that despite all the relentless scrutiny, investigating, and endless parade of hearings, over 24 years now, there still has yet to be a single indictment or criminal charge against her. Either she's the canniest most effective schemer ever (yet simultaneously incompetent enough for all the rest of these minor screwups), or there's really not a lot to any of it.
Re:Popcorn. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually somewhat more telling that despite all the relentless scrutiny, investigating, and endless parade of hearings, over 24 years now, there still has yet to be a single indictment or criminal charge against her. Either she's the canniest most effective schemer ever (yet simultaneously incompetent enough for all the rest of these minor screwups), or there's really not a lot to any of it.
You find it telling that someone who is married to a former president, who has friends in places of power in the government and private sector, who is incredibly wealthy, and who has maintained high profile political positions for decades doesn't get an indictment or criminal charge?
You must believe Putin is a stand up guy too. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score:5, Insightful)
Johnson is the only other candidate on the ballot in Georgia - aside from Trump and Clinton. He's polling in the double digits here - the first time ever for a Libertarian or any third party.
I'm voting for him for POTUS. And then Democrat for everything else I can. The Republicans have pissed me off so much with their brinkmanship over the last 8 years and then to insult us by blaming everything on the Democrats. The Republicans have failed in showing me that they are capable of governing this country. And all the incumbents are Republicans so it's also an anti-incumbent vote for me.
I get the nonsense that I'll be throwing my vote away but its insane to vote for someone you don't want.
We'll probably go all Republican because of the Bible Thumpers - all you gotta say down here is that you're Conservative and against abortion and gay marriage and for unrestricted gun rights and you're in - as long as you have a 'R' next to your name.
The Christians seem to have forgotten:
And I don't recall there being any sort of exceptions.
Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score:4, Insightful)
Read some old testament, there's all sorts of life lessons in there, mostly negative.
By standing up in the ballot box, you're not throwing your vote away, you're showing how many people in your state actually do care enough to vote against the tide. Even if that means that Georgia goes all R by 60-40 margins, it's still communicating to the Rs that 40% don't believe in their message enough to vote for it. If Georgia goes all R by 90-10 margins, those Rs are going to behave differently while in office.
R, D, L, I, they're all politicians, serving their constituency, and actually themselves: if they want to continue to ride the gravy train they'll keep their home districts as happy as they can.
Re: (Score:3)
there is no christ in the old testament
the old testament is not for christians
being christian is meant to follow christ's example
(i'm an antitheist)
Re: (Score:2)
How about stoning people who wear mixed fabrics?
Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that Trump is not exactly the darling of the Republican party. They did everything imaginable to try and keep him from winning the primaries. I think he is only polling at 70% within the party, and many of the party establishment say that they are not endorsing him. Even Bush Sr has come out and said he is voting for Hillary.
To me, this election is not D vs R, but more of like Establishment vs Outsider. Trump could have run as a candidate for either party, and there would be the same drumbeat as to how bad/evil/stupid he is.
Sorry to get off-topic. But yesterday I did a quick Yahoo search "What is Lester Holt's political affiliation". I use Yahoo for any politics-related searches. Trump is being bashed for saying Holt (who will moderate the debate) is a democrat. The Yahoo page still had cached Wikipedia text that says "According to voter registration records, he is a Democrat". So, I saved a screen snapshot. But when you follow the link to the Wiki page, that text is now gone. At the bottom of the page, it says Holt is a Republican. But they only cite two articles, created yesterday, that bash Trump's statement, and use that as reference rather than voter registration records. Over the last day, they altered reality to fit the story that Trump is stupid/wrong. And if anyone tries a quick "fact check", they will hit up Wikipedia, which now contains bogus information and a circular reference. No doubt that by now, other places like answers.com have also been "updated".
Re: (Score:3)
Trump may not exactly be the darling of a certain few prominent members of the republican party. But, as a whole, the GOP as a whole chose him in overwhelming numbers to be their candidate, with 1725 out of 2472 delegates choosing him, for nearly a 70% majority, with the closest contender getting just 484 votes (@ 19.5%). In politics, 70% is a pretty clear mandate. Romney is no longer the republican party. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and even Reagan are no longer the Republican party. Trump is. An
Re: (Score:3)
@AC Thanks for this info. I didn't know you can easily review wiki history. I confirmed it by plugging the wiki info into https://voterlookup.elections.... [state.ny.us] Looks like "Honestmedia" has been busy.
@niaxilin If there is a way to edit my post, I'll gladly remove that paragraph. I was only reporting on my observations, which at least have been confirmed.
Re: (Score:3)
Those two are kind of the same thing...
Plus, the real quote is usually translated as "You shall not murder"(hebrew "rasah") which is different from kill. If somebody is trying to kill you, the bible does not say that you cannot defend yourself, which goes well with gun rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Those two are kind of the same thing...
Plus, the real quote is usually translated as "You shall not murder"(hebrew "rasah") which is different from kill. If somebody is trying to kill you, the bible does not say that you cannot defend yourself, which goes well with gun rights.
Of course, if the woman is pregnant as a result of adultery or pre-marital intercourse, we should just stone her to death and "hope" the unborn child survives?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you have some strange and barbaric ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
no, that's pretty much what the bible says to do...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I should listen to somebody who has probably spent many, many minutes learning about the bible....
John chapter 8. Some guys bring a woman to Jesus to see if he is willing to stone her. His response? "Let any of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Needless to say, the woman lived.
That is called the "New Testament" and covers the life of Jesus and shortly afterwords.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's never "wasting your vote" if you already know how your state is going to vote. I'll just be the difference between "your state votes for [candidate], but [other guy] got a few percent of the vote too" and "state votes unanimously for the Demopublicans".
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans have pissed me off so much with their brinkmanship over the last 8 years
Then why aren't you pissed at the Democrats, who ALSO refuse to get behind things they don't like? Why aren't you pissed at Obama for his own refusal to sign legislation that isn't changed until he likes it, or his own refusal to sign off and budgets and appropriations that don't check the boxes he wants checked? It's impossible for only one branch of the government to play "brinksmanship" - Obama is a 100% eager player that is just as unwilling to budge as the people you're saying you dislike. You're disi
Re: (Score:3)
Following the same logic as the grandparent. As for hoping which will benefit. I try not to give it much thought. I prefer Hillary over Trump by a long shot. But honestly its like choosing dry turd over wet turd. Even if I am going to end up with it, I prefer not choosing it too.
Re: Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score:2)
As I said, I don't give that aspect of this much thought. I vote for the party & candidate that I have to make the least compromises with. I am ok with the fact that the collective may choose someone I don't like.
Re: (Score:3)
They are making a choice. They choose not to endorse either one of the major parties' nominees. Stop acting like the only choice is to vote for someone you find slightly less abhorrent than someone else you find to be completely abhorrent. That only continues the problem.
Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score:4, Informative)
But by voting third party, means that Trump will be favored, therefore you are actually helping him thus contradicting your purpose.
Not in Minnesota. If enough people voted for Johnson over Hillary so that this state went for Trump it would mean that the Libertarians would no longer be a minor party. Since everyone likes to say that the Libertarians take away from the Republicans more than the Democrats this would truly be a huge swing. If instead we assume that enough people vote for Stein in Minnesota that it turns the state to Trump it would again likely mean that they are not a minor party and would be granted automatic ballot access as well as matching funds in the next election cycle.
If I lived in a swing state I would likely have a very hard decision this year but as I don't I can say fuck off to the giant turds in the major parties and instead vote with a clean conscious for president. For those in swing states you will get to pick which authoritarian statist ass hole will be our leader, but at least you get to choose which rights get trampled on.
Re: (Score:3)
I get the argument that you should vote for who you really want because then eventually they might stand a chance of winning, but sometimes the stakes are too high. This time around it's not like either candidate would be okay.
Re: (Score:3)
Wipe the servers (Score:2)
And then when questioned joke about wiping them with a cloth.
Give some protection to Combetta (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
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.
Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score:4, Informative)
Vince Foster has a whole Wikipedia article devoted to his suspicious death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started, the gaslighting asshole.
It's a typical conspiracy theory. No evidence, but lots of coincidences and tenuous links. How come Lewinsky isn't dead, if they have killed equally prominent people over less?
Re: (Score:2)
Lewinski could, actually, have been a carefully crafted political maneuver. The country didn't really have anything better to do than an impeachment process at the time, the man in control won the day, still got his full 2nd term, and made the impeachers look like a bunch of impotent whiners. On the flip side, Newt Gingrich actually left office over his scandal. I met him a few months later (didn't talk about his retirement, though), I'd judge him to have taken the scandal as an excuse to leave office an
Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score:4, Informative)
This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started
Right, he should have been more specific. It was a Clinton campaign worker that started that, and was then thrown under the bus because it was done so publicly. Enter the usual Clinton stealth operative, Sidney Blumenthal, who talked it up behind the scenes where he normally performs his mercenarial tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started, the gaslighting asshole.
Clinton did start it. Even far-left [theatlantic.com] magazines and newspapers [telegraph.co.uk] who aren't in the tank for Clinton [washingtonpost.com] can trace how Clinton ops in 2008, told investigative reporters that they should look into it. And many actually did, going as far as sending investigative teams to look into it. It was one of her campaign strategies.
None of these links say anything about Clinton starting anything of the sort.
Re: (Score:2)
The telegraph is a right wing paper, it absolutely hates the left.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how much time the right wing spent on "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" or "Was Obama even born in this country?" or "Tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain that." (Okay, maybe not that last one), they've kind of lost a bit of credibility when it comes to other things.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering how much time the right wing spent on "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" or "Was Obama even born in this country?" or "Tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain that." (Okay, maybe not that last one), they've kind of lost a bit of credibility when it comes to other things.
Funny thing about that, the whole birther controversy was started by the Clinton campaign in 2008, when she was running against Obama for the presidential nomination. I guess that means her credibility is even worse than the right-wing's, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Granted he is an apostate muslim, still that is different from what the hilliary campaign was pushing.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, in the last few days...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
Yes, even the tides.
Re: (Score:2)
The burden is on the accuser to prove guilt.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
That's not what he's talking about, and you know it.
Please enlighten me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:how is this still relevant? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if a cabinet level position takes hundreds of millions in bribes to direct US foreign policy, yes they should be prosecuted after leaving office even if not running for president.
I look forward to seeing George W. and Dick Cheney being convicted of war crimes in Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
However, both of those individuals are out of power, so it's less urgent to press charges against them than it is against Clinton, who has a terrifyingly good shot at becoming President soon.
Because it looks like a cover-up (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that explains why the IT people would accept a deal, but not why the FBI would offer it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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
"Sir, explain what you meant by 'yiffing.'" (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:2)
Hillary's for prison!
Mmmmh (Score:2)
" like IP logs, which identify the computer used to access a site. "
More like the router or VPN he's connected to.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I did not see any reddit posts asking how to use a VPN.
What an oversight. (Score:2)
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.
The posts show intent and timeline (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To play Devil's Advocate, though, wouldn't that mean that it would be 'easier' to impersonate him, in terms of a username?
I mean, think about it. We all know people who use the same username across a lot of social media platforms, or forums, or whatever. If someone was inclined to impersonate him, the fact that he uses the same handle makes it easier to do so.
Please note, I'm not saying that this is the case. But a handle in an otherwise anonymous setting does not and cannot, in and of itself, identify some
Re: (Score:3)
What interest would anyone have in impersonating him two years ago when the posts were made? And for the lifetime of his account prior to the email questions?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't say it was likely. I didn't even say it happened. All I said, is that you can't use a handle to uniquely identify someone.
Re: (Score:3)
All I said, is that you can't use a handle to uniquely identify someone.
Are you talking metaphysically or legally? Legally of course you can. But if you're trying to be some "well, how can we really know anything?" pedant, then pffft.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not wrong, but the pre-existence of the accounts, the dates involved, and the types of questions asked on each site would kinda blow reasonable doubt out of the water when they can be linked together so closely. The posting here on slashdot sure wouldn't help that argument, any.
Anyhow, the email address used to verify accounts on both sites would probably be a pretty good nail in the coffin if he verified on reddit. (You can, but don't have to)
Re:maaaan (Score:4, Interesting)
To play Devil's Advocate, though, wouldn't that mean that it would be 'easier' to impersonate him, in terms of a username?...If someone was inclined to impersonate him, the fact that he uses the same handle makes it easier to do so.
So, this person who was impersonating him had the forethought to create a reddit posting history for him before the Clinton server was even widely known?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The guy worked for an MSP ( Platte River Networks ), he wasn't even a private contractor. What this does show is that Hillary Clinton cares even less about national security then anyone previously thought. At least a direct hire would have shown some foresight toward limiting the number of jokers with access to these documents. But no, what does this retard do? She outsources it to a bunch of garage sale technicians working at a glorified call center.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that only a few documents were found to be marked classified.
Since it was "only a few" does that make it okay? It is okay if I only kill a few people or only steal a few cars?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually,
Classified or not doesn't matter. The legal requirement is that all State business be handled on government owned infrastructure.
So, by that measure, even if the server in question was entirely non-sensitive information (note that this is different than unclassified, which can still be sensitive and just hasn't yet been subjected to the classification process), it *still* was a violation of the law.
-nb
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide a link to the law that requires "all State business be handled on government owned infrastructure"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Over 1000 documents had classified information at the time they were sent.
I believe 12 were so highly classified they couldn't even release redacted copies of the emails.
The agent investigating, with Top Secret clearance, had to get additional clearance even to view some of the emails.
Clinton used the same classification markings (that she said she didn't know what they were) in memos from State Department that she wrote and WikiLeaks has with her SIGNATURE on them.
There is an email from her asking to have markings removed and sent unsecured.
Yea, lets not let facts get in the way.
Not true... The actual facts are that over 1000 documents were RETROACTIVELY marked as classified by the State Department. They were not marked classified at the time. The agent investigating this issue had to get top secret clearance because of the retroactive classification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:maaaan (Score:5, Informative)
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
There were still 110 emails in 52 separate conversations that had classified information at the time sent or received, according to the director of the FBI during a televised statement, quoted above. Source, quoted paragraph 12. [fbi.gov]
Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. At the time of sending or receipt. Stop being an apologist.
Re: (Score:3)
From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained secret information at the time; and eight contained confidential information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification.
So. Yes there was stuff that was done retroactively, but the director of the FBI made it really clear that hundreds of emails were Classified, Top Secret or Confidential at the time they were sent or received.
Re: maaaan (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how many times this needs repeating to Hillary apologists but, just because SHE didn't mark it classified, doesn't mean it didn't CONTAIN classified information. The information was always classified. And Secretary of State knows the nature of classified information so it shouldn't be a surprise.
Actually I do know how many times it needs repeating. Every time. Because they have no room for new information on this topic.
There were 3 (Score:3)
There were exactly 3 emails that had sections marked with (c) indicating classified, though it was meaningless without the related headers.
Additionally, zero of those 3 emails actually contained classified information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In his defense, he probably didn't think he was doing anything wrong by removing those files, it was probably presented to him as a standard data wipe deal to make sure that the server could be decommissioned. Therefore, he probably didn't think he needed to fully cover his tracks or even that anything illegal was going on.
Granted, alluding to working for a VIP on a public forum is beyond stupid, even if you are totally legit, because then people take interest in you, and it is usually not the people who y
Re: (Score:3)
In his defense, he probably didn't think he was doing anything wrong by removing those files
Document retention regulations have been around for quite a while now. Any network engineer that isn't aware that there are rules in place about this, especially since he knew the identity of the VIP, isn't a very good systems manager. Back when I wore that hat, there were occasions when I made sure a request like this came from a supervisor and in writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Judicial Watch made an FOIA request for Huma's emails from State Department. They found a good number of Hillary emails, to Huma, that the FBI were not able to find after a 2 year investigation. They showed requests for State Department help being forwarded to the donation center for Clinton Foundation and then being answered by State Department after appropriate donation. No, yoga was not mentioned in those emails, and as far as I know not a single email mentioning yoga has been found to date.
FBI never
Re: (Score:2)
FBI never once considered looking for emails from people Hillary frequently sent emails to, to verify no work related emails were deleted. FBI from the beginning decided to not recommend indictment
They apparently did not get a single subpoena, and perhaps did not even request a grand jury, which would have been necessary to get subpoenas.
Re: (Score:2)
(cough)Killian Documents(/cough)
Thank God for the unwashed masses. Russia's solution would be to drop a radioactive ball in someone's bloodstream to make the problem "go away". You can stay here, keep your home and unpack your shit.
Re:What about Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
There are? I only found 3 posts. [slashdot.org]
The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them
- https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: "Big Brother" and the Web
Gasbag Joe Liberman ... LOL right on! I just moved from Michigan, and he's one quack I'm not sorry to see gone. Well everyone knows that the liberal agenda includes removing any personal responsibility or blame for your actions from you, and putting them in the lap of big scary corporations and 'the internet' and such. Blah. ;) ST
- https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
And my personal favorite:
Document Retention - How Long is Too Long?
I'm contracted to a state government, and let me tell you, everyone here saves EVERYthing for cover-your-ass purposes.. it's really sad to see every little memo back to 1997 in someone's inbox taking up PHAT amounts of disk space on the GroupWise server ... sigh
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
I guess once you get to certain levels of government the "CYA" is deleting all of your e-mails.
Re: (Score:2)
And archives of 'stonebear's Reddit Posts:
http://archive.is/KYaF0 [archive.is]
http://archive.is/TCbPU [archive.is]
http://archive.is/OoSMr [archive.is]
http://archive.is/OoSMr [archive.is]
http://archive.is/MjyK3 [archive.is]
http://archive.is/lDzk0 [archive.is]
http://archive.is/o4hrr [archive.is]
http://archive.is/o4hrr [archive.is]
http://archive.is/cfCeL [archive.is]
http://archive.is/mYXp3 [archive.is]
http://archive.is/kTDoF [archive.is]
http://archive.is/iOjnh [archive.is]
http://archive.is/TaYXV [archive.is]
http://archive.is/EgZJR [archive.is]
http://archive.is/MU0TL [archive.is]
http://archive.is/WBG4m [archive.is]
http://archive.is/HHHQi [archive.is]
http://archive.is/Sq21A [archive.is]
http://archive.is/zmpKK [archive.is]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming there were multiple accounts on this server. Depending on how the discovery request was worded, if the VIP's email address was removed or modified from the from / to headers of emails, one could reduce the set of emails that have to be handed over 'where the VIP was included in the conversation'. Or perhaps remove embarrassing email addresses that were cc'd/bcc'd on sent mail.
The danger is that another party to the chain still has a copy of the email that shows it in a different state then
Re: (Score:3)
How is it unclear? IP logs are a smoking gun.
You've been downvoted because slashdot users are too smart to believe that, and indeed you're probably being sarcastic, but IP logs are indeed a smoking gun. By themselves they leave reasonable doubt, but combined with other evidence they are convincing.
To believe he didn't do it, you'd have to believe that there's reasonable doubt someone else, who used a distinctive name that is the same as one he's used, used his IP address to request information that is relevant to his profession and job, on the day aft
Re: (Score:2)
It's only "unclear" to biased and corrupt Demo Sycophants in the so-called Press (now propaganda bureaus) and the running-dogs who support them.
You need to stop watching Fox News and get outside more.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't exactly over the table either, this was more like: "bob the contractor, who on top of setting up exchange for you, will also help migrate all my quickbooks data to peach tree" ...that's the sort of IT person in question.
Re: (Score:2)