4 ms·

Later on, but not at the point here. He could delete all her private emails here if he wished.

danso 10y ago
So what is the point? A discussion about what could be possible? He could dress up as Osama bin Laden and crash his car through the White House gate but that doesn't mean that it's something that Secretary Clinton believes is necessary for her campaign. Similarly, yes, he could delete the emails after being told they were part of an investigation, but that would lead to unwanted consequences. Could he have deleted them before any investigation started? Sure, then it would just be a cloud of suspicion, but no legal ramifications. My original point was that as soon as Clinton agreed to turn over the emails, it was in the State Department's ballpark to determine which were eligible for disclosure, as the emails were written during her time at State and ostensibly dealt with State business. Not sure why you felt you had to argue that she had the capability of just destroying her servers. If she had done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion because she likely wouldn't be in the race.
patrickg_zill 10y ago
you raise the point: where in the timeline of subpoenas or other legal requests does the attempt at modifying the email archive, does Combetta's post fit? My understanding: Combetta's post comes 1 day after Hillary had reached an agreement about turning them over. So was she dealing in bad faith with the govt? To be determined I guess?
- mozumder 10y ago
  Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. How is that "bad faith"? "Bad faith" is trying to expose personal email addresses to spammers. The House Republicans would love it if they could publicize her private personal email address. It would render it useless. The IT guy's job here is to make sure that doesn't happen.
  - adamrezich 10y ago
    >Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not.
  - patrickg_zill 10y ago
    I can't agree with your view of a possible motive. She owns the domain - she can change her email address at any time to a new one.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    It is the job of the FBI to redact the information before it is released. It is ILLEGAL for the IT guy to change any of it when you are given a court order to turn over everything unmodified. But apparently he keeps accidentally bumping the delete key.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > It is the job of the FBI to redact the information before it is released. Its is the job of the FBI to redact information they choose to (or are required to) release in accordance with any legal, operational, etc., concerns applicable to the FBI. OTOH, its quite possible that the Clinton camp anticipated that they might have reason to directly release some or all of the emails to entities other than the FBI.
stale2002 10y ago
Not according to the FBI and the courts he can't.

danso 10y ago

So what is the point? A discussion about what could be possible? He could dress up as Osama bin Laden and crash his car through the White House gate but that doesn't mean that it's something that Secretary Clinton believes is necessary for her campaign. Similarly, yes, he could delete the emails after being told they were part of an investigation, but that would lead to unwanted consequences. Could he have deleted them before any investigation started? Sure, then it would just be a cloud of suspicion, but no legal ramifications. My original point was that as soon as Clinton agreed to turn over the emails, it was in the State Department's ballpark to determine which were eligible for disclosure, as the emails were written during her time at State and ostensibly dealt with State business. Not sure why you felt you had to argue that she had the capability of just destroying her servers. If she had done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion because she likely wouldn't be in the race.

patrickg_zill 10y ago

you raise the point: where in the timeline of subpoenas or other legal requests does the attempt at modifying the email archive, does Combetta's post fit? My understanding: Combetta's post comes 1 day after Hillary had reached an agreement about turning them over. So was she dealing in bad faith with the govt? To be determined I guess?

mozumder 10y ago
Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. How is that "bad faith"? "Bad faith" is trying to expose personal email addresses to spammers. The House Republicans would love it if they could publicize her private personal email address. It would render it useless. The IT guy's job here is to make sure that doesn't happen.
- adamrezich 10y ago
  >Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not.
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  I can't agree with your view of a possible motive. She owns the domain - she can change her email address at any time to a new one.
- stale2002 10y ago
  It is the job of the FBI to redact the information before it is released. It is ILLEGAL for the IT guy to change any of it when you are given a court order to turn over everything unmodified. But apparently he keeps accidentally bumping the delete key.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > It is the job of the FBI to redact the information before it is released. Its is the job of the FBI to redact information they choose to (or are required to) release in accordance with any legal, operational, etc., concerns applicable to the FBI. OTOH, its quite possible that the Clinton camp anticipated that they might have reason to directly release some or all of the emails to entities other than the FBI.

stale2002 10y ago

Not according to the FBI and the courts he can't.