Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

23 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. Popcorn. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Popcorn. by AmiMoJo · · 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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Popcorn. by Mashiki · · 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.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Popcorn. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Popcorn. by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, 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.

    5. Re:Popcorn. by Hodr · · Score: 4, 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?

  2. Give some protection to Combetta by LichtSpektren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Give some protection to Combetta by LichtSpektren · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seth Rich, allegedly killed in a robbery where nothing was actually stolen: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

      Vince Foster has a whole Wikipedia article devoted to his suspicious death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Give some protection to Combetta by ScentCone · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. Re:maaaan by adamjgp · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's even worse than not using TOR. Combetta used the same handle "stonetear" that he used in multiple other places on the internet. (Etsy, Gmail, etc.)

  4. Re:maaaan by Kierthos · · 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 someone.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  5. "Sir, explain what you meant by 'yiffing.'" by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, 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?"

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  6. Re:What about Slashdot? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are? I only found 3 posts.

    The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them

    - https://slashdot.org/comments....

    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....

    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....

    I guess once you get to certain levels of government the "CYA" is deleting all of your e-mails.

  7. Johnson and anti-incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · 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:

    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.

    1. Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, 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.

    2. Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent by bigwheel · · 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".

    3. Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  8. Re:maaaan by Kierthos · · 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.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  9. Because it looks like a cover-up by davide+marney · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  10. Re:maaaan by anyaristow · · 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?...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?

  11. Re:how is this still relevant? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, 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.

  12. Re:maaaan by MachineShedFred · · 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.

    Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. At the time of sending or receipt. Stop being an apologist.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  13. Re: maaaan by backwardsposter · · 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.