3 ms·
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 u
by 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 agoCombetta 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 agoI 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 agoIt 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.