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

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.'"

Comments

Popcorn.

[0100010001010011]

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

Re:Popcorn.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

[Mashiki]

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.

[0100010001010011]

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.

[Fire_Wraith]

"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.

[networkBoy]

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:Popcorn.

[Hodr]

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?

Give some protection to Combetta

[LichtSpektren]

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:Give some protection to Combetta

[AmiMoJo]

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?

Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

1. Thou shalt not kill.
2. Love they neighbor.
3. Turn the other cheek.
4. Blessed are the meek.
5. Blessed are the peace makers.

And I don't recall there being any sort of exceptions.

Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[JoeMerchant]

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:Johnson and anti-incumbent

[Anonymous Coward]

Your question is loaded. You claim he is not making a choice, but he is. He is choosing a third candidate. Your black and white thinking has made you incapable of even phrasing a question accurately, IMO.

It really doesn't make sense.

"Should we eat our family dog roasted or deep fried?"
"Neither."
"You're playing right into the hands of the deep fryers!"

Re:how is this still relevant?

[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 you are acting. What difference does it make if she is a presidential candidate? Appeal to authority fallacy much? Look what the president of Brazil has done. This is the same shit.

How the fucking hell do you not have a transcribed, taped, deposition regarding something like this.... the PUBLIC evidence is mounting that she deleted these e-mails after the subpoena was issued. The FBI/CIA/NSA have all the information and know she is guilty as hell but since Obama/Clinton control these people, only the PUBLIC can stop her.

Gah... what am I doing... you are so far gone and will never open your mind to what you are letting these people get away with.

Re:maaaan

[Kierthos]

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.

Because it looks like a cover-up

[davide marney]

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:maaaan

[David_Hart]

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/...

Re: maaaan

[backwardsposter]

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.