Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
That's true, and I understand it.
That's not the end of the story.
The emails were actually destroyed after a preservation order was issued. That matters too. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
'The suspect destroyed evidence after the investigation began'
'But he tried to destroy the evidence before there was an investigation'
'Ah, well then, nothing to see here'
/dramatization of two hypothetical detectives, not a description of the email scandal
|
But is is that simple in identifying the responsible party. Anything ordered prior to the preservation notification is clear and free. What happens after the preservation order is where responsibility is assigned. The deletion that took place, after the order, was the action of Combetta. It was his decision and action to delete the files on the server along with the backups. It was also his decision to try and cover his tracks using Bleach Bit. The fact that there was a meeting three weeks later is indicative of legal counsel preparing to act on the preservation order and present information as outlined. The Timeframe presented by the Examiner reporter, supposedly from FBI docs, is what informed the decision to not lay charges. They could clearly see who did what when, and it was an IT guy trying to save his own butt. That clearly answers the question of the deletion, and Platt River was responsible of any wrong doing in that regard.
To me the issue that should be pushed is the data handling. They need to figure out the timeline for when documents were received, when they received a classification label, and how they were handled after that label was attached. That time is the one place where Clinton is likely open to charges. But based on the FBI investigation it appears there was no wrong doing in this regard as well. The documents that have labels need to be released along with their transmission details. Only then will we know if anything sketchy took place.