Hillary’s IT Guy Caught Asking How To Destroy Evidence - Polidicks

[QUOTE=patq911;51079251]am I dumb or does this not make any sense? he wanted to strip the email address from emails, what's wrong with that? he didn't want people to know the address was [email]hillary@hillaryclintonemail.com[/email] (something like that). just replaced with "hillary" or similar. why is this a problem?[/QUOTE] Hiding the fact that email was sent from insecure account.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51077164]Scapegoat or not, he still knowingly helped Hillary destroy evidence, so it's still justice.[/QUOTE] And if he was simply told to not knowing the law? [editline]20th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;51079275]Hiding the fact that email was sent from insecure account.[/QUOTE] That hides nothing of the sort

[QUOTE=srobins;51079275]Hiding the fact that email was sent from insecure account.[/QUOTE] but surely they would still know it was from her private server.

[QUOTE=patq911;51079283]but surely they would still know it was from her private server.[/QUOTE] How would they know that if the sender info was scrubbed?

[QUOTE=srobins;51079275]Hiding the fact that email was sent from insecure account.[/QUOTE] Wasn't this already established though? Didn't the FBI acknowledge that it happened and let her off? What changes will this make, aside from reminding people of the email debacle?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51079309]Wasn't this already established though? Didn't the FBI acknowledge that it happened and let her off? What changes will this make, aside from reminding people of the email debacle?[/QUOTE] It was, because he failed to accomplish this task. [editline]20th September 2016[/editline] In terms of changes, it changes nothing, just adds evidence that they knew they were misbehaving and tried to mask that fact early on.

[QUOTE=patq911;51079251]am I dumb or does this not make any sense? he wanted to strip the email address from emails, what's wrong with that? he didn't want people to know the address was [email]hillary@hillaryclintonemail.com[/email] (something like that). just replaced with "hillary" or similar. why is this a problem?[/QUOTE] You're assuming they only stripped Hillary's address. Strip all or several and create plausible deniability about who did what.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;51079369]You're assuming they only stripped Hillary's address. Strip all or several and create plausible deniability about who did what.[/QUOTE] The act of stripping important information wouldn't create plausible deniability, it'd create a vector for the courts to attack her with.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51079376]The act of stripping important information wouldn't create plausible deniability, it'd create a vector for the courts to attack her with.[/QUOTE] I don't understand your argument. You think stripping the sender info isn't an issue because.. They would have gotten in trouble for it?

[QUOTE=srobins;51079388]I don't understand your argument. You think stripping the sender info isn't an issue because.. They would have gotten in trouble for it?[/QUOTE] I perfectly well understand my argument in context of the person I replied to. Because yes, the fact they stripped that would have been used as evidence against them. Remember, its not the law that decides what happens, its the jury. The law is just what tells you what can and cannot be done.

im sure the skilled investigators on /pol/ and reddit will be able to finish the FBI's job for them :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51079376]The act of stripping important information wouldn't create plausible deniability, it'd create a vector for the courts to attack her with.[/QUOTE] I didn't intend to strip all addresses, I thought I told them to strip only my address.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;51079471]I didn't intend to strip all addresses, I thought I told them to strip only my address.[/QUOTE] Whether they intended to or not won't make it inadmissible in court. "Oh I didn't mean to murder this person!" "Well I'll be -- all charges dropped!"

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51079477]Whether they intended to or not won't make it inadmissible in court. "Oh I didn't mean to murder this person!" "Well I'll be -- all charges dropped!"[/QUOTE] "I didn't intend to store classified information on my unsecured server." "Well I'll be -- guess we won't prosecute" Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter or accidental death. See the problem comes that when you move to charge someone with the crime, you have two suspects that you can't prove acted unlawfully unless it's in writing somewhere. "I told the IT guy to wipe only my address" "I was told to wipe all addresses" You're not going to build a case on this with just one word against the other. The stronger case would be against the IT tech if there's nothing in writing. And I believe he's already stated he didn't know she was under investigation and the emails are evidence.

But we're talking about the IT guy getting benefit of the doubt -- not Hillary. Him deleting information if he was simply told to (not all IT actions are under writing) has the possibility of being dismissed, but not certainty. The burden of proof could be on either the courts or him depending on how things go.

snip

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51079585]But we're talking about the IT guy getting benefit of the doubt -- not Hillary. Him deleting information if he was simply told to (not all IT actions are under writing) has the possibility of being dismissed, but not certainty. The burden of proof could be on either the courts or him depending on how things go.[/QUOTE] Not really understanding your argument here, you started by referring to the courts being able to use it as an attack vector against Hillary, but now you've switched to Combetta.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51076730] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/E6Tkh9u.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] How does nobody consider that he might have been intending to be read as responding in a deadpan ironic tone to match that of the title? It looks more like he is making fun of what a furry might post in response to such a thing. I've seen worse, more inappropriate iterations of such things on this site.

"Hey guys, how do I destroy incriminating evidence?" IT1: "Put it on Reddit!" IT2: "Nah, just tweet it." IT3: "Guys, please be serious, just give it to Wikileaks." Well, that's how I immagined it went anyway.

Maybe when Hillary tweeted "Delete Your Account", she had actually meant to tag her IT Guy instead of Donald Trump. :v: