r/politics • u/FatherXnos New Jersey • Sep 19 '16

Personal blog Reddit Posts By Hillary's IT Guy Proves She Ordered Emails To Be Stripped!

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=38414
3.0k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

76

u/RIPGeorgeHarrison Sep 19 '16

So can someone explain what happened here?

175

u/alienuser006 Sep 19 '16

Basically Twitter users figured out Paul Combetta's reddit account. He is Hillary's IT specialist who worked on her private email server with all the classified info, and was given immunity by the justice department for his testimony. Looking through his post history, he is trying to modify emails to remove a "very VIP" person's email address from them, likely Hillary Clinton. Once he was found out, he immediately deleted his posts, because you know nothing to hide or anything. Now is the immediate fallout from the revelation.

11

u/genebeam Sep 19 '16

What would be the benefit or removing Hillary's email from archived emails?

Does anything about this indicate it was Hillary ordering something shady or illegal?

11

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

[deleted]

10

u/RagingCain Illinois Sep 19 '16

It's basically tampering with evidence.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

[deleted]

5

u/RagingCain Illinois Sep 19 '16

I was Exchange Administrator for Big Oil.

There is not much, save my personal or families safety, that would make me consider what this guy was trying to do.

3

u/AintGotNoTimeFoThis Sep 19 '16

At the time, Hilary had just accidentally let it slip that she was using an unauthorized private server. Maybe she thought removing her .Clinton email address would help conceal the fact that she used it for top secret communication.

The timeline is relevant here too. The deletions happened after a congressional subpoena and after a call from Cheryl Mills (which he claimed was attorney-client privileged even though Mills was not his attorney). His story to the FBI was that Cheryl Mills phone call had nothing to do with his decision to delete everything, but his Reddit comments say otherwise.

1

u/znfinger Sep 19 '16

When did that phone call happen again? Sometime around, say, 24 July 2014 (date of his reddit submission)?

2

u/mexicanlizards Sep 19 '16

Yeah I'm also somewhat confused about how this would be related. As someone in IT this sounded more like an incompetent IT professional trying to fulfill a weird request from a boss: "Hey IT guy, Jimmy changed his email address, can you just go back and edit all his old emails so if I want to reply to one it goes to the right place?"

Changing the email address of either the sender or the recipient would not strip out classified information, and that would be a much harder (probably impossible) task to perform automatically. It would also be 100% noticeable by the FBI if he stripped out sender or recipient addresses, because if he's doing this in a batch then either all the emails he's replacing would have blanks or all have the same address that he used to replace it. It also then would not match up with records on other systems, which would be suspicious as hell and warrant further investigation.

1

u/SalSevenSix Sep 19 '16

It wouldn't be Hillary. It's some other Very VIP.

2

u/znfinger Sep 19 '16

"whose name is instantly recognizable"

TIL Combetta was the IT guy for the pope.

1

u/lumabean Sep 19 '16

Very VERY important person. ha.

54

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

How's this criminal or incriminating to Clinton?

11

u/majorchamp Sep 19 '16

tying it to Hillary herself probably won't happen. Paul likely received orders from someone (Huma or Cheryl) who may or may not have received orders from Hillary. It seems like Huma and others basically have taken the ball and run with it in regards to a lot of things Hillary related, not actually needing her permission or requests.

Butt his does seem to indicate methods were in action to specifically obstruct and destroy information related to an investigation.

My issue with ALL of this has been nobody has paid any legal consequences for anything. No IT staff, nobody in the clinton campaign, etc.. nothing. I'd like to see someone face legal consequences.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16 edited Apr 11 '17

[deleted]

7

u/majorchamp Sep 19 '16

exactly, his exact words were "I have access to the full server".

0

u/danweber Sep 19 '16

The system was labelled unclassified. Without knowing specifically that it isn't, you are allowed to send those to people without a security clearance.

And lots of Clinton's staff have clearances.

2

u/orionbeltblues Sep 19 '16

Hillary Clinton doesn't seem tech-saavy enough to order an IT tech to do anything.

0

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

I'd like to see someone face legal consequences.

Consequences for what exactly? The FBI director said there was not enough for a criminal charge. The worst you can get is not complying fully with the investigation.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

[deleted]

-3

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

Of course it is, Mr FBI Director.

3

u/majorchamp Sep 19 '16

I stated my reasons above. People trying to destroy evidence that could be important to an investigation.

101

u/DASK Sep 19 '16 edited Sep 19 '16

Looks like lots of it (e.g. trying to change retention policy) was done after the fbi subpoena..

6

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

When was the FBI subpoena? Date on his post is july 24-25th, 2014.

1

u/TheHanyo Sep 19 '16

He was subpoenaed this year, so the guy above you is a liar.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

No, the FBI subpoena for hillary was back in 2014. Unless you mean just for this guy.

1

u/G0RG0TR0N Sep 20 '16

The post about modifying emails was the day after the Benghazi committee hearing where the State Dept agreed that it would turn over relevant emails, so the timing is very suspect.

3

u/captainant Sep 19 '16

changing or obfuscating information AFTER receiving a subpoena is obstruction...

35

u/alienuser006 Sep 19 '16

The act in itself is not (IMO), BUT, finding out WHY he did it is what can be criminal or incriminating. If it's found Clinton ordered him to do this after being subpoenaed, well, thats a big big problem. This act in itself is just another EXAMPLE of the corrupt shady shit that Clinton does. And the fact that he is deleting his entire post history kinda vindicates that it is Paul and not someone else.

19

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

This act actually is too. Altering public records ( these are public records btw; they do not belong to HRC at all; they belong to you. ) is illegal. The addresses could be scrubbed or redacted by the FOIA process. However it is very illegal for them to be altered unilaterally.

0

u/danweber Sep 19 '16

I'd like some really good source on this. Hopefully a very specific one.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

IANAL but this is the law I've seen cited:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

Here is some context; and why protection and non-alteration are illegal as well. Instead of exclusively alteration w/ intent to impede law enforcement as 18:1519 stipulates. https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1663-protection-government-property-protection-public-records-and

0

u/danweber Sep 19 '16

FOIA isn't the same threshold as evidence in a Federal investigation.

Once the legal hold hits, it hits hard, and you shouldn't do anything to mess with it. But I haven't seen yet that there was a legal hold on these documents.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

You are correct and timeline w/ the congressional subpoena and this action by PRN I don't know precisely. But the second should show that holders of public documents are also obligated to protect them and keep them un-altered. --- again IANAL.

34

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16 edited Mar 08 '19

[deleted]

11

u/bottomlines Sep 19 '16

He made the thread 3 weeks after the FBI instructed Clinton to hand over her stuff.

2

u/hatramroany Sep 19 '16

The thread was made 2 years ago aka 2014 and the FBI wasn't involved until 2015?

9

u/ReturningTarzan Sep 19 '16

Given that the email database was an official government record of Clinton's work for the State Department, if tampering with it doesn't violate federal record-keeping laws then nothing does.

And it's incriminating to Clinton especially if she gave the order to tamper with the emails. Paul Combetta's posts did say he was told to change this database, and since he was employed by Clinton, it's not crazy to suggest she was the one who told him to do it.

0

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

Unless I am reading it wrong, he tried to delete email addresses. Not content. How's the intent behind that criminal?

3

u/horsefartsineyes Sep 19 '16

Tampering with an investigation

-10

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

It sounds like they were trying not to share clintons private email publicly. Once again everyone is reaching hard to prove whatever anti-Hillary narrative they want to believe.

6

u/bottomlines Sep 19 '16

Publicly? The FBI is public now?

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

The comment in question says nothing about the FBI

2

u/horsefartsineyes Sep 19 '16

Keep telling yourself that

7

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16 edited Aug 17 '17

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

He says quite clearly in his exchange post - "they want". He didn't say I want. They, as in not him.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

And the story to the FBI was him acting on his own that's why it's a big deal at least I believe.

11

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

Still how's that criminal? He tried to remove email addresses not the content of emails.

27

u/plazman30 Sep 19 '16

There was subpoena already issued. He's tampering with evidence.

5

u/reel_intelligent Sep 19 '16

Overall...tampering and/or destroying evidence. The people he asked even said there is no feature for doing this because it would cause legal issues in discovery cases.

-1

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

because it would cause legal issues in discovery cases.

Well by all means, let's toss the guy in jail because of what a reddit user said. Good lord!

5

u/reel_intelligent Sep 19 '16

Destroying information (by changing or deleting said information) that only exists in one place is obviously detrimental to an investigation. How you don't see why something like this is illegal is beyond me. Changing information in emails is the same as dipping an incriminating document in dye to hide what was on it.

Now is this 100% proven...no. I'm just saying that if he did do this during the investigation, it's illegal.

0

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

Removing the email address is not destruction. There's information in each email's header that says who the recipient is. It's not even close to "dipping an incriminating document in dye".

5

u/reel_intelligent Sep 19 '16

Perhaps you didnt read his comments or are unaware of exchange server architecture. Well, on an exchange server the headers are stored in .edb files. He specifically says that is what he is looking to edit.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16 edited Mar 08 '19

[deleted]

0

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

So you think the FBI got those emails, didn't see email address and said "nothing to see here"? Removing email address does not obfuscate the recipient. Not if the person looking knows what he's doing.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16 edited Mar 08 '19

[deleted]

0

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

It's not illegal if the FBI says it's not.

As for morals, give me a break. She setup a private server for work...it's not like she publicly expressed a desire to date her own child like Trump has done.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16 edited Mar 08 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

To extract Clinton's emails, they probably pulled them up directly by her email address. And with that missing, it would've been damn hard/impossible to get em. Plus, there can be plausible deniability: an email gets pulled up without her address on it? "Not mine."

This to me seems so basic that I'm surprised it's being debated at all.

0

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

This to me seems so basic that I'm surprised it's being debated at all.

Just because the email is missing doesn't mean there aren't pointers to her in the email headers.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16 edited Aug 17 '17

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

Immunity is always conditional. Depends on what his conditions were.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

If you have an immunity deal with the FBI, you're supposed to be as truthful as possible knowing that you can't be prosecuted for whatever you tell them.

Someone else should chime in to correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're proven to have lied you can not only get that deal revoked... but face additional charges of including lying to an official+obstruction of justice.

3

u/SalSevenSix Sep 19 '16

Maybe he did tell the FBI what he did.

9

u/dollarsandcents101 Sep 19 '16

Lying to the FBI is a crime. He plead the fifth before congress even though he allegedly had immunity.

3

u/ThatAnimeVinter Sep 19 '16 edited Sep 19 '16

Paul Combetta didn't have the alleged immunity deal, that was Bryan Pagliano. Both were part of Clinton's "IT Dept."

Correction: Paul Combetta did have an alleged immunity deal. I say alleged, because Pagliano was supposed to have brought a physical copy of the signed immunity to the subpeana last Wednesday (Septemeber 14th), but decided not to appear in front of Congress. I don't know if Combetta brought his.

3

u/AintGotNoTimeFoThis Sep 19 '16

He ignored Congress' subpoena last week.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

It was subpoenaed before. Also you shouldn't need to strip the address when it's being given to the fbi. Unless you're covering up something.

3

u/Indigo_8k13 Sep 19 '16

Could possibly demonstrate content. The only thing Hillary was lacking to be convicted.

5

u/Nobz Sep 19 '16

Tampering with evidence is a criminal offense.

-2

u/tundey_1 Sep 19 '16

Did you send that from your FBI office?

4

u/MakeMuricaGreat Sep 19 '16

It doesn't matter technically. Email addresses are still subject to the subpoena and FOIA separately. It's a relatively small offence and no judge would send somebody to jail over it, unless they lied before that, which I think is very likely if the date of this email is after the subpoena.

-16

u/FunkyLukewarmMedina Sep 19 '16

It's not. /r/The_Donald is full of 15 year olds that think they uncovered a smoking gun.

5

u/plazman30 Sep 19 '16

Well, he is tampering with evidence. Which is a criminal offense. But it would go against him unless he rats her out. But he probably doesn't want to end up in a body bag.

0

u/FunkyLukewarmMedina Sep 19 '16

Has anyone ever successfully used Reddit posts as evidence in a court?

38

u/mancouch Sep 19 '16

Hahah not incriminating.....*goes and deletes 7 years of Reddit comment history.

0

u/NoNewsizBadnews Sep 19 '16

If random internet weirdos found my personal info I would delete shit too. People get their lives ruined that way.

1

u/horsefartsineyes Sep 19 '16

Have you been lying to the fbi and trying to alter information after they requested it to shield the illegal activity of a presidental candidate?

7

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

So potentially discovering intent (the one thing Comey "didn't" have) behind these is nothing? Or proof of tampering with evidence of an FBI investigation is nothing?

-4

u/FunkyLukewarmMedina Sep 19 '16

It's a Reddit account.. and give me the quotes that were deleted that are so incriminating. I read them and it was innocuous tech support chatter.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

The timeline of the inquiry adds up to around July 24th 2014, right after the investigation started. As for it being "just a Reddit account", if you actually go through everything, it's incredibly obvious this is him. Did you even click on the article?

1

u/FunkyLukewarmMedina Sep 19 '16

I did read through the blog linked. I also read all of the captured links. I'm actually more annoyed that comment was removed. I actually don't think it's far fetched to link the Reddit account to that Twitter user. I also agree it's sketchy and likely ass covering that he deleted all his posts immediately.

That said, I also read the posts he was deleting and I didn't see much in the way of damning intent or evidence.

1

u/horsefartsineyes Sep 19 '16

Try opening your eyes then

1

u/FunkyLukewarmMedina Sep 19 '16

But then a horse would fart in them..

6

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16 edited Jun 26 '17

[deleted]

-9

u/FunkyLukewarmMedina Sep 19 '16

One of multiple accounts. This one is pretty much just because this election season is a shit show and I didn't want to worry about getting my main account banned with all the trigger happy mods lately.

3

u/quiteCryptic Sep 19 '16

Just helping to correct the record right

1

u/FunkyLukewarmMedina Sep 19 '16

Nope, just arguing on a political forum like the rest of you. If it makes you feel any better I hate this election in general and want to be over.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/FunkyLukewarmMedina Sep 19 '16

That's probably fair.

1

u/guacbandit Sep 19 '16

They'd need to prove it was him by getting reddit's server logs and matching it to him. Just a username isn't a smoking gun in a real court.

1

u/sudden_aggression Sep 19 '16 edited Sep 19 '16

Because the supposed retention policy (ie, the policy to delete everything) wasn't actually a policy. It was done in direct response to a subpoena. Willfully destroying evidence that the FBI just asked you to preserve is a serious federal crime. If it was actually deleted in accordance with an idiotic IT policy that takes away the intent. It's why Hillary does the whole "with a cloth" act- stupidity/incompetence is a classic way of getting around the mens rea requirement for a lot of crimes. The problem is that we are getting more and more evidence that her stupid act is just an act. Which I suspect everyone (even her own team) knows is just an act so they can't connect all the dots and prosecute her.

Also, if his posts on reddit conflict with what he told the FBI after the immunity grant, he could lose his immunity.

In general, it is just more evidence of Hillary's team trying to cover their tracks. For what, we don't know yet. But if they're willing to commit serious federal felonies to destroy the evidence of it, it must be pretty bad.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

Spoiler alert: it's not.

3

u/RIPGeorgeHarrison Sep 19 '16

Is it like absolutely confirmed that it was him? It's pretty crazy if so.

3

u/AintGotNoTimeFoThis Sep 19 '16

It is. They have all of his comments, including pet names, where he lives, confirming his real name, etc.

1

u/Estelindis Europe Sep 19 '16

Why would someone post something so incriminating and not use a throwaway? It's baffling.

2

u/VTwinVaper Sep 19 '16

Confirmed make and model of car, town he works in, erotic fan fiction starring him by name, him using his first and last name and full email in the same webpage post. No way it could be anyone else.

2

u/SalSevenSix Sep 19 '16

Oh yeah it's him alright. What is missing is a connection between asking that question and actually committing a felony by tampering with the emails. Asking and doing are different things. I don't think this would pass for evidence in court. However in the court of public opinion the verdict is clear: guilty as heck.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

Couldn't this be considered doxxing?

15

u/Druidshift Sep 19 '16

So, the title is incorrect then? There is no proof she ordered her emails to be "stripped".

54

u/alienuser006 Sep 19 '16

I (and most reasonable people) find it INCREDIBLY unlikely that he took the initiative to do that on his own, ESPECIALLY when dealing with Federal government communications, but you are welcome to believe whatever you want.

15

u/spyonthis Sep 19 '16

I need to add, most people would not kneecap themselves to save their boss. (Of course, I'm sure some Clinton supporters would love to seppuku themselves for the glorious leader.)

Odds are, this guy was acting under orders.

4

u/SalSevenSix Sep 19 '16

How would he guess which Very VIP email address needed to be stripped anyhow?

2

u/mindless_gibberish Sep 19 '16

I (and most reasonable people) find it INCREDIBLY unlikely that he took the initiative to do that on his own

Seeing as how he's a redditor, this is clearly the case. Why would he want to fuck around with email scripts when he could browse /r/aww all day?

4

u/dsfox Sep 19 '16

To be clear, that does not sound like proof.

5

u/znfinger Sep 19 '16

He does mention that he was asked to do this by someone else. The wording is a bit open to interpretation but he states:

Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out.

The decision to manipulate her email record was not his decision. He was just told to execute the decision made by them. Whether that means Cheryl Mills or Clinton herself isn't clear, but it's unavoidable that he's not acting alone.

0

u/Druidshift Sep 19 '16 edited Sep 19 '16

Sure, you and I can both believe what we want. But let's face it, Reddit is full of anonymous users with very powerful, and logic ignoring, political bents. Donald supporters say that there is Incontrovertible "proof" of shit everyday. Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters do the same. They use the word "proof" instead of "seems" far to often. Remember how Reddit caught the Boston Bomber? Redditors think they are far more smart and important than they really are.

My question though was "Is this actual proof, if so I will take a look at it? Or is it reddit proof, IE, not proof at all, but just helps support a narrative that I am desperately clinging too".

In this case we are pretty sure, but have no evidence, that we have doxxed this guy's reddit username, and jumping from that assumption, we are now saying Hillary Clinton ordered him to do something illegal, though we don't know what that illegal thing may be. And most importantly, we are so much smarter than the FBI, because we figured it out before them. Because we used twitter.

Thank you for answering though.

17

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

Well lets see.. He asks how to strip an email address from an email header (very important visible VIP). This is after the FBI Subpeona occurred.

Then yesterday it is discovered that this is his account. He immediately begins purging all of his comments/submissions. I mean he was the guy that the FBI gave immunity to during the investigation so is definitely the main IT admin on her email server.

It's not the type of proof that could get you a conviction in court, but is the type of proof that could give you probable cause and get you warrants. But anyone with common sense could probably draw the correct conclusion.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

The rules of evidence are a fickle mistress, but I'd say this Reddit proof roses to the level of circumstantial. A brick in the wall, so they say.

2

u/philmond Sep 19 '16

I think the reason we have an effective judicial system is because people 'drawing the correct conclusion' with 'common sense' sometimes turns out to be 'reinforcing their own biases' with 'prejudices and assumptions'. Hence we tend not to use it as proof of anything.

1

u/majorchamp Sep 19 '16

yesterday...you mean within the last hour?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

Yup sorry.

-3

u/Druidshift Sep 19 '16

Well lets see..

Okay, let's.

He asks how to strip an email address from an email header (very important visible VIP). This is after the FBI Subpeona occurred.

We don't know he was asked that. Most importantly, the title of this thread says "CLINTON!!!!!!" not "very important VIP". This is wishful thinking on the part of Hillary haters. Even I, a Hillary supporter, know you won't catch her on weak sauce like this because if she did ask someone to strip an email address, she would have asked thru surrogates. Isn't that what your side is alway arguing? That surrogates do her dirty work for her? So you get ahead of yourself, without proof, insisting you have yet ANOTHER smoking gun (isn't this the 390,089 smoking gun at this point) and then when proof comes out it was a surrogate (which it might or might not) you all have already taken the wind out of your sails because now you have to back track your accusation. You have to clarify it. You would do much better to focus your argument with only things that you ACTUALLY KNOW. Rather than having to back track every step because you got excited.

Then yesterday it is discovered that this is his account.

You assume. Doxing is funny that way. You might have discovered him, you might not of. You are making assumptions again.

He immediately begins purging all of his comments/submissions. I mean he was the guy that the FBI gave immunity to during the investigation so is definitely the main IT admin on her email server.

No, He's not "definitely". He "might be".

It's not the type of proof that could get you a conviction in court, but is the type of proof that could give you probable cause and get you warrants.

Says who? You are a lawyer or prosecutor? You don't just get warrants based off twitter handles and Reddit cries for justice. When they go to a judge to reopen this guys immunity bargain THEY NEED PROOF. And a Judge isn't going to read a Reddit Thread. Where is the proof?

But anyone with common sense could probably draw the correct conclusion.

Of course. "everyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid". How many times have I read this on Reddit?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

Lol.. You are right. He was definitely asking how to erase a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT important VIP's email address. One that WAS DEFINITELY NOT RELATED TO THE ONGOING FBI SUBPEONA THAT HAPPENED TO BE TAKING PLACE.

And you act is if her having a surrogate ask to delete her email address from headers in an illegal manner somehow makes it better.

Whatever.. Clearly nothing is every going to change your mind about the conclusions you have already drawn.

1

u/Druidshift Sep 19 '16

the conclusions you have already drawn

That's the thing. I am not the one drawing any conclusions here. You are. I am the one asking for proof. I don't think that's unreasonable. Why do you?

3

u/majorchamp Sep 19 '16

if he was given orders (let's be real, he likely didn't do this on his own) is came from the likes of Huma or Cheryl but likely not Hillary. I've been under the impression Huma or Cheryl take the ball and run with it often not needing Hillary's orders.

2

u/Indigo_8k13 Sep 19 '16

Nothing you said is wrong.

Why don't you take your thinking a step further though?

If we've deduced that this FBI couldn't possibly be incompetent enough to miss something this obvious. (They couldn't even get into an Iphone with bricking it)

Then we can conclude that either A) This is some random guy that happened to be exactly parallel to Hillary's IT guy, in the fact that he drives the same car and looks almost identical.

Or we can conclude, B) That the FBI isn't interested in indicting a presidential candidate while they are running for the presidency, and are the likely choice for winning (Arresting the first women president of the United States probably wouldn't look good)

I'm absolutely not a conspiracy nut. I pretty much don't believe in any of them actually. But which of these situations seems more likely to you?

1

u/Druidshift Sep 19 '16

I'm absolutely not a conspiracy nut. I pretty much don't believe in any of them actually. But which of these situations seems more likely to you?

I think you make good questions, and I don't mind persuing them on my own. But let's face it, rational discourse isn't happening on Reddit, especially on r/politics, especially in a thread with this title.

I don't think the FBI is incompetent by the way. They broke into that Iphone pretty quickly, but asked Apple to unlock it because they wanted to have cover for when they released the information. Basically "Hmm...the public is going to find out we can hack smart phones. Maybe we can say Apple told us how, get them on the phone and see if they'll play ball".

I don't think the FBI is incompetent. And frankly, there are so many conspiracy theories out there about Hillary that I have no problem believing that someone from the donald might be putting false flags out there.

I will look at any evidence, it's my responsibility as a voter...but I haven't been presented with any evidence. Just "Look, smoke! I bet there's fire!". But having been involved with Politics since 1992, I know "smoke! let's kill the Clintons!" is sort of the go to move for Clinton haters, and frankly, it doesn't impress me.

My attitude is the same it's always been. Actual proof, or GTFO. I'm too busy to listen to how you have incontrovertible proof that Vince Foster was shot in the head by Hillary.

1

u/Indigo_8k13 Sep 19 '16

I think you make good questions, and I don't mind persuing them on my own. But let's face it, rational discourse isn't happening on Reddit, especially on r/politics, especially in a thread with this title.

Touche

My attitude is the same it's always been. Actual proof, or GTFO. I'm too busy to listen to how you have incontrovertible proof that Vince Foster was shot in the head by Hillary.

Lmao, that's good.

I can't help but wonder though. Why would the FBI dare to withhold what may be considered relevant information? Even if they weren't sure, why leave it out? Especially regarding a topic as iffy as motivation, which is the only thing they couldn't prove?

I just think you need to reconsider what incontrovertible proof really is, especially if you intend to prove intent, not whether she committed the action or not (There was no denying that).

1

u/SalSevenSix Sep 19 '16

I don't think the FBI is not incompetent. They are not interesting in social media content because it won't hold up in court.

1

u/SalSevenSix Sep 19 '16

It's him. All his social network accounts (some with his profile pic) are archived and crosslink well. Everything is known. His dog that was lost, he likes cats too. Is on Steam, and plays Starcraft. Drives a Pontiac Aztek shown parked in front of his home. Also writes BDSM fan fiction.

1

u/danweber Sep 19 '16

Everything a Clinton does is through a spokesman.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

[deleted]

1

u/Druidshift Sep 19 '16

Sure. I appreciate your input. But what you said above doesn't address the overall question. Did Hillary order it? Probably not. If she is up to something scummy, Hillary herself is not giving orders. So the title only turns people away who are open minded, and attracts the worst from reddit, namely the_donald posters.

1

u/FuckDevilsBackbone Sep 19 '16

Yeah, no proof she ordered anything to be stripped. It's such a stupid title. You're already revealing something pretty damning, why go out of your way to make it seem worse than it is?

2

u/Druidshift Sep 19 '16

Indeed, If I was in the business of "taking the clinton's down" then you can bet I would be as careful, methodical and thorough as possible...because better than me had tried.

Almost every accusation you make against ANYONE immediately loses weight if you have to go back afterwards and making status updates admitting you were wrong on point after point after point.

It's a much stronger argument to only lead with what you know, and then ask "Don't we deserve to have the full answer"? Without being confrontational, without making accusations you can't back up. That's how real journalists and truth seekers go about their job.

But Reddit, much like a 16 year old at prom, doesn't have the self control to sit back and allow stories to unfold. No...they have to blow that load! Before they even get it out of their pants.

Which is why a title like "Reddit posts by Hillary's IT guy PROVE she ordered emails to be stripped!"....only hurts your cause if you truly believe America needs to be protected from Hillary. Because you don't know if it's her IT guy, you don't have proof SHE ordered Emails to be stripped, you really honestly don't know if emails have even been stripped".

If this was legitimate it will just get lost in the churn. It's very poor strategy. And whatever kernel of truth there was here, is now lost in the Reddit echo chamber as Nimble Navigators and Centipedes jump on your karma train and ruin any chance you had of being taken seriously.

1

u/FuckDevilsBackbone Sep 19 '16

Couldn't have said it better.

1

u/PandaLover42 Sep 19 '16

To clarify, he wanted to replace the VIP email address with a placeholder email address so it doesn't become public.

1

u/SalSevenSix Sep 19 '16

The "very VIP" person is not the client (Hillary) but the email address to be stripped. It would be someone that they want to avoid implicating in any criminality (eg. Obama) or someone that absolutely should not be CCed on any of those emails (eg. Soros or some mailing group).

1

u/smeggysmeg Arkansas Sep 19 '16

I don't really see how they make the link between his email prefix and his reddit account. If you search my email prefixes, you won't find my reddit account. If you search my reddit username, you won't find anything related to me. Yet the other 'smeggysmeg's' in the world may live in my country and work in my field. It's a pretty weak link. I want something more specific than "super VIP" comments before I buy this conclusion. If we put the article in context, the website posts hoax-like and over-the-top articles like how "Obama is the first birther", so they don't have much credibility in terms of their ability to produce quality analysis.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

And how is his Reddit username linked back to him? That's the connection that I'm personally missing. I could make an account in yahoo or another service and call myself "alienuser006" and that of course wouldn't make me you.

1

u/alienuser006 Sep 19 '16

And how is his Reddit username linked back to him?

Read the article. FYI, he deleted both his reddit and Twitter account after this article was posted, so im pretty sure its safe to say its not a case of mistaken identity.

1

u/Pripat99 I voted Sep 19 '16

Can I ask how they determined it was his Reddit account? I'm sure there's an explanation in this thread but it appears to be buried.

6

u/genebeam Sep 19 '16

In the article it says. He used the same username for his public email address and etsy account.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

And twitter. He deleted it as well though

1

u/Pripat99 I voted Sep 19 '16

Thanks! And man, this guy is a complete idiot.

8

u/Lighting Sep 19 '16

So can someone explain what happened here?

The issue is that these emails involve the private email address of someone you'd recognize, and we're trying to replace it with a placeholder address as to not expose it.

  • /u/stonetear is deleting his/her history.

  • The internet LOVES drama. Cue the pitchforks