Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
|
Directly from your evidence.
Dec 5th, 2014, turned over emails to State Department. The Clinton office orders the destruction of all emails on the private server.
March 2nd, 2015 NYT publishes article about “secret” server.
March 3rd, 2015, preservation letter sent to Clinton’s office.
March 4th, 2015, documents were subpoenaed.
Clinton’s people reach out to service provider informing them of the preservation order.
Platt River Engineer has an oh-#### moment, and chooses to delete the information and then uses Bleach Bit to try and cover his tracks. Platt River engineer also deletes the backups.
March 25th, 2015, the Clinton lawyers circle the wagons. The Platt River Engineer claims privilege and refuses to divulge details of what he did.
March 27th, 2015, the Benghazi Hearing Chairman speaks to the Clinton Email Hearing Chairman about having a third party review the server to see if there was anything both committees could use.
As I said in a previous post, this is an engineer who knew he screwed the pooch and was taking actions to cover his tracks. The Clinton offices ordered the destruction of the emails after the transfer to the State Department. Platt River failed to comply. The Clinton offices forwarded the preservation order to Platt River and engineer panicked, knowing he would over produce in meeting the upcoming subpoena, so he started deleting files, a decision made by himself. This is all crashing down on Paul Combetta and Platt River. The guy didn't know how to secure a server, nor deal with a preservation order. This is not surprising unless you have had to work through the process before. It can be confusing and stressful as to what to do. So the engineer tried to do what he was supposed to have done months earlier and then cover his tracks, not understanding that EnCase would be able to find the fragments of what he had done.
The 2nd article is purely speculative. It is an invoice for services rendered during the investigation. If you look at he line items they clearly state they were research and compliance. This is Platt River trying to recoup the costs they were forced to incure during the investigation. Unless they got paid, this proves nothing. You can submit an invoice to anyone, that does not establish an ongoing relationship with that entity. If they pay the invoice, then you have some grounds to stand on, but the submission of an invoice means nothing.