iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,919
- 1,600
- Thread starter
- #221
whether i agree or not, i do think this has been one of the more balanced discussions on a usually hot topic.so it was important enough toYou answered the first part.I’ve answered your question. I’ve also described your statement as “altering evidence” as being a misrepresentation. I speculate that Combetta sought to expunge references to her actual email address from the email trove as a means obscure the use of her private server.who whole premise is - she didn't feel she was doing anything wrong by having her own server. now if doing nothing wrong, why is she hiding this address? and would stripping out the e-mail address be legal in altering potential evidence?Well, State Dept found out about the server. Not the public. Not the committee at that time. Clinton was asked for her work related emails in October. They provided 50k plus to State less than 2 months later. Turning in paper copies is routine in the archaic system at the State Dept. Although I have little problem saying that Clinton isn’t terribly found of transparency and were not going to do the Republican committee investigating her for the 8th time any additional assistance beyond the bare minimum of what was requested.it's not hard to copy the mailbox to a portable device and go "here".great. why? and if this is all he was out to do, how do we go from removing her e-mail address to destroying the drive it sat on?
Not sure what you mean. These are different issues with pretty clear explanations for each
what happened in the end was FAR MORE than simply removing her e-mail address.
so - first things first - why would we need to remove her e-mail address if we're simply turning this over to a senate committee?
What was “far more”?
At that time, they were turning email over to the State Dept, it was a response to an official request from state. They wanted to obscure the email address presumably to hide the fact that she was using her own account which at the time I don’t believe was publicly known. I think it predates the N.Y. Times story that broke the issue. Anyway, the address was not obscured. The thing you’re upset about didn’t even happen.
for hillary this took MONTHS and in this time, combetta was asking all this "how do i destroy XYZ" in reddit. and the only reason they were asking for the mails is BECAUSE they found out about her server. so your "reason" here isn't lining up with when things happened.
they found out.
they asked for mail
obama passed law saying "no more"
hillary turns in 300 printed pages
combetta out in the wild asking how to destroy evidence / alter and strip headers of "very important people"
AND - why is she hiding if she's not going anything wrong?
and i care because they asked. GIVE ME YOUR DATA - "hold on i have to remove / delete stuff" simply isn't a good thing to happen back to back.
period.
Saying Combetta was asking how to destroy evidence is a mischaracterization.
You need to be more specific when you say “they” because I can’t tell who you’re referring to.
i can't address "routine" as the digital age has presented its own challenges through time that we're still learning the rules of engagement for.
so my premise and belief is that anyone she was dealing with should already have known of her private email address. now that it's getting "wider" in its use and depth, from your own data it took almost 2 months to turn over the data. paper copies were not requested and in my mind it was simply a stall tactic. i'm not sure how we define "Routine" in this instance but i'll table that for now.
so - in any event we do seem to agree that she sought to alter evidence before turning it over. now - why did she want to do that? i won't speculate your answer, that isn't fair to you. but i do feel it's a valid question at this point still.
But my question is, if she thought this was OK, as she has stated, why hide it?
And removing her name is in fact altering the evidence. I've never known a potential defendent to be able to determine what was needed to investigate them properly before.
I still don't.
She may have felt that use of the server was permissible, legally speaking. Doesn’t mean she wants the details of the server made public. She wanted to run for president and didn’t want the adverse public perception.
It wasn’t “evidence“. She wasn’t subpoenaed. This was a response to a formal request from the state department. She wasn’t a defendant.
1. request all the work related info of of it
but
2. not important enough to ensure she didn't get to pick and choose what that was
important enough that
1. everyone knew about it
but
2. she didn't want anyone to know about it
it was only personal data she's removing but
1. yoga and wedding plans is all her personal stuff is
but
2. she wants her e-mail stripped off of it so she's not associated with it
so at this point i feel i've pointed out (3) contradictions in this "nothing to see here" stance you are taking. so i'll ask now -
if trump did this do you still show the same level of "rage", or lack thereof?
I don't think you're accurately characterizing what I've said, and you're "contradictions" aren't exactly contradictions. Your statements are a bit vague, so I'll do my best.
1. It was important for the State Dept to have the records of her emails. They asked her to submit her records as they would anyone else, as they did with the other former secretaries of state, including Powell. You may find it nefarious that she was able to determine what records she felt were work related (in this case her lawyer did it but you get the jist) but that's exactly how it works.
2. "Everyone" didn't know about it. Some people did, some people didn't. It goes without saying the fact that her server was used exclusively for email was not public knowledge until later.
3. I don't really even understand this point. Someone wanted her email stripped out so that it wasn't super obvious that it was all done on her private server. I don't know what that has to do with her private emails.
Since you drug Trump into this, let's compare.
Let's hypothesize that Clinton and the State Dept refused to comply with any subpoena of records to the Congressional committees investigating. Let's say Clinton refused to testify and Obama forbade anyone from testifying to these committees? That would be consistent with what Trump has done. I can only imagine how you would have felt about that.
Less than hypothetical, let's say that Trump has a habit of destroying memos and papers that are part of presidential records. Yeah, he's done that. Let's say people in the Trump administration use unofficial communication methods to converse with public officials. Not the end of the world, sure. But guess what? Those people choose what to submit as official records. No one is launching FBI investigations into that, are they?
it is my opinion that when asked for work mail, the measures we've discussed are shaded to hiding something. but yes, when i say that it sounds like someone talking about trump also. fair is fair and i do believe you've tried to keep it that way while i've drifted a bit.
the final trump comparison - as far as i know, no one has asked for records and he deleted or destroyed them. its hard to say his habit of destroying this is any different than anyone before him and i'd likely not care UNLESS he was told "bring this in" and he went and selected what THIS was vs. turning it all over in the interest of transparancy.
i don't think we're ever going to agree on this but this is one of the better counters i've had. appreciated.