The Robert K. Hur Special Counsel Criminal Investigation of President Joseph R. Biden.

a reply to: loveguy

Who does Paul Combetta work for? Who signs his paycheck? What did Clinton's team ask him to delete those emails? Who was the one that informed him of the subpoena and asked that no further emails be deleted?

The answers to these questions will show that you're chasing a nothingburger.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: loveguy

Who does Paul Combetta work for? Who signs his paycheck? What did Clinton's team ask him to delete those emails? Who was the one that informed him of the subpoena and asked that no further emails be deleted?

The answers to these questions will show that you're chasing a nothingburger.

Read the timeline provided, or don't. Your choice to be ignprant of these things is yours alone.

I'm the lazy one here.

a reply to: loveguy

I did. Where does it say Clinton ordered emails to be deleted after the subpoena? Where does it say any devices were destroyed?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: loveguy

I did. Where does it say Clinton ordered emails to be deleted after the subpoena? Where does it say any devices were destroyed?

No you did not read it.

Bye bye.

a reply to: loveguy

I did. Did you?

If those things are included, I'm sure you can point is to the exact dates.

a reply to: Threadbare

You mean Reddit guy? I can tell you from working in IT you NEVER delete anything regarding a client unless told so someone told him to do it. Was it HRC herself, I am sure it was not, but one of her staffers. Like Diet Coke guy and Trump except Combetta got immunity from the...wait for it...DOJ! The DOJ who discussed this with the former POTUS on the tarmac.

No one would delete a PST for someone like HRC unless you wanted evidence removed.

a reply to: matafuchs

He had been instructed to delete it. Three months before the subpoena was issued. Then when the subpoena came he had an "Oh #" moment and panicked.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: loveguy

Who does Paul Combetta work for? Who signs his paycheck? What did Clinton's team ask him to delete those emails? Who was the one that informed him of the subpoena and asked that no further emails be deleted?

The answers to these questions will show that you're chasing a nothingburger.

You mean the guy who got an immunity deal?


How odd....

a reply to: JinMI

The DOJ regularly uses immunity deals to compel witnesses testimony if they think that testimony will lead to a bigger fish. They've done it with a number of witnesses in the Trump investigation.

They guessed wrong in the Clinton case.

a reply to: Threadbare

Yeah. I know the story.

a reply to: JinMI

Yeah man, the DOJ got it wrong with the person they like and right with Trump.

a reply to: Threadbare

If you want to include Patels "limited immunity" as your argument, it's still a 5 to 1 comparison.

They guessed wrong in the Clinton case.

Understatement of the century.

Or simple hypocrisy.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: JinMI

Yeah man, the DOJ got it wrong with the person they like and right with Trump.

Funny how that keeps happening.

Those mistakes only going one way oddly....

Establishment republican yea thats almost as terrifying as I am from the government I am here to help.

Or maybe I am jaded.

a reply to: JinMI

Just a quick search shows that Patel and two fake electors have received "Queen for a Day" immunity deals. It's still unknown what kinds of deals people like Meadows and Rudy have been offered, if any.

In the Clinton case three people, including Combetta, were given "Queen for a Day" immunity deals.

a reply to: Threadbare

Here's your quick search....

Another.

Combetta wasn't given "queen for a day." He was absolved not only for his criminal activities but also for his lying about them as he perjured himself.

However, during his previous interview in February 2016, he told investigators that the December 2014 deletion order played no role in his decision to delete the emails.

Despite lying to investigators, Combetta reportedly received immunity from prosecution.

I won't change your mind, but to the rest of the folks with a few braincells and integrity, we can clearly see all the double standards.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbare

I won't change your mind, but to the rest of the folks with a few braincells and integrity, we can clearly see all the double standards.

Whether President Trump brings it to an end, or we the people bring it to an end, the "double standard" at the top of Justice and the Judiciary are being dissolved, commencing in 2025.

a reply to: JinMI

Yes he was.

Accordingly, on May 3, 2016, the Department entered into a standard letter
use immunity agreement with Combetta. The terms of this agreement were
identical to the terms incorporated into the Pagliano letter use immunity
agreement.

Source

a reply to: Threadbare

Such a dishonest hack man.

Very next sentence:

Specifically, in exchange for Combetta providing truthful information
during FBI interviews as well as truthful testimony during any grand jury or court
appearances, the Department agreed that it would not use his statement or
testimony, or any information derived from it, during a subsequent criminal
prosecution, “except for a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or any
other offense that may be prosecuted consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 6002.”
93
B

Which he perjured himself then went on to plead the 5th.

a reply to: JinMI

I was concerned that we would end up with obstruction cases against
some poor schmuck on the down, that, that had a crappy attorney
who didn’t really, you know, if I was his attorney, he wouldn’t have
gone in and been, you know, hiding the ball in the first place. And so
at the end of the day, I was like, look, let’s immunize him. We’ve got
to get from Point A to Point B. Point B is to make a prosecution
decision about Hillary Clinton and her senior staff well before the
election if possible. And this guy with his dumb attorney doing some
half-assed obstruction did not interest me. So I was totally in favor of
giving him immunity.

The DOJ chose not to charge him for his earlier two, voluntary, interviews. It was at that time they granted him letter use immunity in order to get his honest testimony without him pleading the 5th.