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.'"

11 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 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. 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/...

  3. 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 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".

  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.