undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjwebb999y ago0 comments

Yet, immediately after she realized she was being investigated, she immediately deleted relevant data in a way that made it impossible to recover--or words to that effect.

What's more, the FBI director said that any reasonable person should have realized the sensitivity of information they were transmitting regardless of its markings.

I find it really bizarre how people go out of their way to tune out any information that paints Clinton/Trump/Sanders in a bad light (depending on your temperament).

I'm not saying Clinton should be tarred and feathered (or even sent to jail), but she has hardly been exonerated of any wrongdoing. Why do people find that so difficult to admit?

0 comments

JulianMorrison9y ago

What the FBI said was that her lawyers filtered out the relevant emails with algorithms based on headers rather than contents, gave those to the investigators, and non-recoverably deleted the irrelevant remainder. The FBI looked at the search filters and didn't find any evidence of attempted concealment in them.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjwebb999y ago0 comments

Yet, immediately after she realized she was being investigated, she immediately deleted relevant data in a way that made it impossible to recover--or words to that effect.

What's more, the FBI director said that any reasonable person should have realized the sensitivity of information they were transmitting regardless of its markings.

I find it really bizarre how people go out of their way to tune out any information that paints Clinton/Trump/Sanders in a bad light (depending on your temperament).

I'm not saying Clinton should be tarred and feathered (or even sent to jail), but she has hardly been exonerated of any wrongdoing. Why do people find that so difficult to admit?

0 comments

JulianMorrison9y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse