3 ms·

What adam12 said -- sure, running a private email server to avoid FOIA is just Bush-level shady (though I'd hope the bar acceptable behavior would be higher tha

by dilap 10y ago

What adam12 said -- sure, running a private email server to avoid FOIA is just Bush-level shady (though I'd hope the bar acceptable behavior would be higher than 'Bush did it'). But modifying and deleting evidence to thwart a subpoenae from the FBI is real bad.

Retric 10y ago
It's 7 months, prior to the first subpoena. This is a question for redacting information, which is fairly common when doing releases to congress etc.
- dilap 10y ago
  ah, good point about the timeline. after the benghazi subpoena, but before the email subpoenas. not nearly as bad.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Do you really think that they didn't knew a subpoena was coming? Infact I would bet that they've consulted with a lawyer and this "redaction" was deemed as "shady but not criminal". Hilary might be "dumb" (as far as IT goes) but she ain't stupid.
  - Retric 10y ago
    If they thought it was going to cause a mess they likely would not have done it in the first place. If the opposition can make something look bad and you don't gain anything from it then what's the point.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Hindsight is always 20/20. Overall this sort of redaction smells like legal advice. You define the record as the body of the message and archive messages without the headers, or at least without the sender and recipient headers in them. This might even be a valid interpretation of the US records act. When asked why you can say this was the archiving policy and you stored the messages as a document and the headers were irrelevant since they did not hold any information. When asked about who sent or received a specific email that has been redacted you can 'honestly' claim "I do not recall". Overall this is pretty much exactly the borderline illegal narrative that a good legal counselor would provide in this case. Of Course that advice was granted based on the premise that there would not be a trail that would make this look premeditated and suspicious.
- prklmn 10y ago
  This is called covering your ass just in case, not redacting.

by dilap 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

It's 7 months, prior to the first subpoena. This is a question for redacting information, which is fairly common when doing releases to congress etc.

dilap 10y ago
ah, good point about the timeline. after the benghazi subpoena, but before the email subpoenas. not nearly as bad.
dogma1138 10y ago
Do you really think that they didn't knew a subpoena was coming? Infact I would bet that they've consulted with a lawyer and this "redaction" was deemed as "shady but not criminal". Hilary might be "dumb" (as far as IT goes) but she ain't stupid.
- Retric 10y ago
  If they thought it was going to cause a mess they likely would not have done it in the first place. If the opposition can make something look bad and you don't gain anything from it then what's the point.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Hindsight is always 20/20. Overall this sort of redaction smells like legal advice. You define the record as the body of the message and archive messages without the headers, or at least without the sender and recipient headers in them. This might even be a valid interpretation of the US records act. When asked why you can say this was the archiving policy and you stored the messages as a document and the headers were irrelevant since they did not hold any information. When asked about who sent or received a specific email that has been redacted you can 'honestly' claim "I do not recall". Overall this is pretty much exactly the borderline illegal narrative that a good legal counselor would provide in this case. Of Course that advice was granted based on the premise that there would not be a trail that would make this look premeditated and suspicious.
prklmn 10y ago
This is called covering your ass just in case, not redacting.