https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/02/politics/texas-congressional-map-advanced

A Texas House panel on Saturday advanced a new congressional map as state Republicans power ahead with a strategy backed by President Donald Trump to help the GOP maintain the US House majority in the 2026 midterms.

The map, unveiled earlier this week, attempts to make five Democratic congressional seats more favorable to Republicans. Texas Republicans argue the move is necessary over concerns that the current maps are unconstitutional and racially gerrymandered. Democrats have said it would suppress the votes of people of color.

The Texas House redistricting committee voted along party lines Saturday to approve the map, setting up a full House vote.

Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder said Saturday the party will file a lawsuit if the map passes, adding that state Republicans are “silencing voters on behalf of Donald Trump.”

“Democrats must fight this Trump power grab through any means necessary, and blue states across the country should use this as a signal flare to start carving up their own states and make these authoritarian wannabe Republican lawmakers regret ever opening up this redistricting discussion in the first place,” Scudder said in a statement.

Democratic governors in states like California have already warned they will attempt the same tactics to help their party win more seats, in what one US House Democrat described to CNN as a “redistricting arms race.”

US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his political team are exploring similar plans in California, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington state in hopes of flipping at least a handful of Republican seats next November. Democrats need a net gain of just three seats to win the House in the midterms.

The new Texas map features 30 districts that Trump would have won in 2024 if the map was in place, up from 27 under the current district lines. In total, there are five more seats that Trump won by more than 10 percentage points, according to data from the Texas Legislative Council.

The proposed map eliminates the Austin-area seat of Rep. Greg Casar, who would likely be forced into a primary with another liberal Democrat, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, in the Austin area. Multiple people close to Doggett have told CNN they do not expect him to bow out quietly and instead foresee the two battling it out in a primary. One of those people close to the senior House Democrat pointed out that he has $6.2 million cash on hand.

In a statement this week, Doggett did not address the question of his future and said his “sole focus” is defeating the new GOP map.

Casar, for his part, vowed in a statement to “fight back with everything we’ve got,” calling for voters to “mobilize against this illegal map.”

Republicans also propose merging the Houston-area seat of Rep. Al Green with a vacant seat held by the late Rep. Sylvester Turner, who died in office earlier this year. Green’s district was altered more than any other sitting member in the plan. Democrats expect Green to run in the new seat, though he may have to battle it out with some of the Democrats who were already running for the Turner seat.

The map would also make two southern Texas seats — held by Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez — more Republican-leaning. But multiple Democrats view the seats as still in reach for the two centrist members who typically performed ahead of statewide or national Democrats.

Trump has not yet weighed in on the proposed Texas map.

no need for that. simply removing all immigrants and non-whites will correct that problem.

>just cheat lmao :)

>>1424003 (OP)
If dems are allowed to gerrymander the fuck out of Illinois, why isn't Texas allowed to do the same?

>>1424018
Traditionally redistricting is done only once every ten years, after the census. Trump asked GOP held states to do it early to help republicans in the midterms.

>>1424020
And? The fuck does this have to do with Illinois? Here let me help you:
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-extreme-risk-of-gerrymandering-becomes-reality-through-congressional-map/
>tl;dr dems lost population so they redrew the map to get rid of GOP-held seats

So back to my original question, why is it a problem when Texas does it?

>>1424021
>why is it a problem when Texas does it?
Because they are Republicans, what don't you understand? When Democrats do it it's because they are fixing the damage caused by Republicans, when Republicans do it it's because they hate brown people and want them all to live in Nazi murder camps

>>1424021
Wow you're really dumb so I'll spoonfeed you. Illinois redistricts when the census comes out, the next time will be in 2030. Texas does it every few years regardless of when the census comes out. This wasn't even legal until Bush's era.

>>1424022
Who are you playacting for this time?

>>1424023
So what I was driving at: "It's only okay when WE do it!"

>>1424025
It's literally cheating like >>1424013 said.

>>1424022
>why is it a problem when Texas does it?
Republicans do it, because it's the only way they can win

>>1424029
Both parties of the duopoly do it. It's the only way they can beat a third socialist party

>>1424027
And so is the shit that dems do in Illinois. I literally had a civics teacher use our map as an example of gerrymandering, and how it's """illegal""".
>source: born in the quad cities
Point is, dems have been gerrymandering in Illinois longer than I've been alive. But now that Texas is doing the same thing, oh NOW it's illegal. Now it's cheating. Now they can't do that!

Go fuck yourself.

>>1424025
Trump told them to do it early with the intention of rigging the midterms.

>>1424032
Republicans do it in over 30 states, dems do it in like 4.

>>1424033
see >>1424034
you know this is wrong and you're being retarded on purpose.

>w-well they're doing it too!!
Would you fuck off with this child logic already?

>>1424037
You idiots are spazzing out right now over a white woman wearing jeans, and you're telling me to stop acting childish?

You first.

>>1424042
>>>/x formerly known as twitter/

>>1424042
Who's doing what now?

>>1424036
>Republicans do it in over 30 states, dems do it in like 4.
Source?

>>1424066
your mom

>>1424067
Come on bro, don't be like that, at least ask your boss, I'm sure your figure was based off of some misinterpreted statistic and wasn't just purely your imagination, right?

>>1424122
You can stop pretending you don't understand the difference between redistricting when the census comes out in 2030 and redistricting whenever Trump feels like it. No one here believes you.

>>1424022
Exactly this.

Supreme Court is about to make it worse for the entire USA by overturning the voting rights act. Then, no more elections, just pretend.

>>1424123
>No one here believes you.
I haven't said anything except asking for some proof of your wild claim. The reality is nobody believes you.

>>1424128
Shitty damage control

>>1424025
Shut the FUCK up and engage with the point they're making, fag.

>>1424128
NTA, so I don't know where he got that figure, but it's a pretty well-known fact.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/31/politics/gerrymandering-texas-republicans-analysis
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/

>>1424134
>NOOOO ONLY WE GET TO SAY WHEN ITS OKAY TO CHEAT... AND ONLY WE CAN CHEAT
Suck a cock.

>>1424137
see >>1424123

>>1424226
>YEAH WE'RE CHEATING BUT HE'S CHEATING MORE WAAAAAAHHHHH
Keep whining about it fag. You rat dems are getting a taste of your own medicine now.

>>1424229
Please, I beg of you, look up what the census is and it's effect on population maps, then realize what they're doing here should be illegal.

>>1424230
He knows he's BTFO he's just being a dunderhead again.

>>1424230
>mfw lefty faggots in this thread still trying to justify them cheating
Beg all you want. I'm not hearing your bullshit excuse after several years and several states democrats have already gerrymandered to the point where a Republican doesn't have a chance in hell: Illinois, California, New York, Maryland, and however many more exist that I haven't bothered to look up yet. So save your tears for someone who gives a fuck (i.e. not me).

It's too bad you never had parents growing up. One of them might've taught you the saying "If you're gonna cheat, don't cry when you lose."

>>1424231
lol yeah I'm soooo btfo now that Republicans are playing the dems game better than they are.

>>1424232
>I refuse to look up info that shows I'm retarded!

>>1424232
You don't have to be a lefty faggot to make fun of your job shilling for the GOP on a dead board.

>>1424234
>>1424235
Is gerrymandering illegal? Yes or no.

>>1424235
>You don't have to be a lefty faggot
>it's just a coincidence that I'm a lefty faggot still whining about this

>>1424236
Why do you keep trying to ignore the context? Does this work on the shithole board you come from?
>>1424238
Yes you are mad.

>>1424239
>Why do you keep trying to ignore the context? Does this work on the shithole board you come from?
Why can't you answer a simple yes or no question?
>Yes you are mad.
>implying
LMAO. I'm not a dem seething over Texas right now. QQ harder and answer my question boy.

>>1424236
It can be, but it shouldn't be.

>>1424239
>Why do you keep trying to ignore the context
The context is that you are angry Republicans are doing the same thing Democrats do

>>1424241
>It can be, but it shouldn't be.
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. I give you the common democrat position: "It's only okay when WE do it!"

>>1424242
He said, continuing to ignore the context.

>>1424243
That's not what that says.

>>1424242
More like you're ignoring the context of doing this early because you're absolutely seething mad that Gavin Newsome is going to cancel out whatever Texas does and the number of house seats in republican hands isn't going to change.

>>1424244
>but it shouldn't be.
Translation: I'm okay with it when my party is in power. Keep sucking cocks dems lol.

>>1424246
That's still now what that says.

>>1424247
You're still crying that it happened to you this time.

>>1424248
Keep seething

>>1424248
Still wrong.

>>1424250
>implying
lol Texas is winning. What do I have to seethe for?
>>1424251
Still crying.

>>1424245
>More like you're ignoring the context of doing this early because you're absolutely seething mad that Gavin Newsome is going to cancel out whatever Texas does and the number of house seats in republican hands isn't going to change.
Of course he will. I have no doubt that Democrats will continue to gerrymander even harder than they ever have been

Honestly, at this point, I'm down for dissolving the United States. Time to shed the uneducated christofascist ethnosupremacists so the rest of the modern world can live in real peace.

>>1424258
nice try Ivan

>>1424265
Why Ivan? The whole rest of the world hates us now.

>>1424274
>us
One of Ivan's main objectives, as you know, is to sew discord among the American populace and encourage the country to break up, to the point that they were recently caught sponsoring Texas and California secession groups on Facebook.

>>1424280
Go to bed, hillary. It's past your bedtime

>>1424293
It's kind of amazing how Hillary is still a boogeyman for you people 10 years after she ran for president.

>>1424230
>then realize what they're doing here should be illegal.
But it's not. Texas allows mid-decade redistricting. They don't have to wait 10 years for a census to do this.

>>1424294
for me time doesnt suddenly make her crimes not crimes

>>1424302
what crimes?

>>1424305
Ordering the destruction of FBI subpoena'd evidence for one.

>>1424306
Ahh so you're retarded, got it. It's standard procedure for most federal agencies to destroy hard drives after use. They would have been breaking the law if the didn't wipe/destroy the hard drives. Hillary didn't make up the rule.

>National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-88, Guidelines for Media Sanitization: These widely adopted guidelines define three levels of media sanitization: Clear, Purge, and Destroy. Destroying media is the highest level, making data recovery infeasible using state-of-the-art laboratory techniques. This is particularly relevant when the media will not be reused or contains highly confidential data.

>NSA/CSS Specification 9-12 (National Security Agency/Central Security Service): This specification outlines rigorous requirements for the destruction of classified and top-secret data on various media, including hard drives. For magnetic hard drives, it generally mandates both degaussing (demagnetizing) and physical destruction to prevent data recovery.

>Department of Defense (DoD) Regulations (e.g., formerly DoD 5220.22-M): While DoD 5220.22-M, focused on overwriting data, has been superseded by NIST 800-88 and NSA requirements for classified data, the underlying principle of ensuring data irretrievability remains central to DoD data disposal practices.

>Industry-Specific Regulations: Depending on the type of data, other regulations may also apply. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) mandates the secure disposal of protected health information (PHI), and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) requires secure disposal of customer data by financial institutions.

>>1424308
>It's standard procedure for most federal agencies to destroy hard drives after use.
Not when the FBI is asking for those hard drives. It's also not standard practice to give the guy immunity.

>>1424310
They were already destroyed when the FBI asked for them, which is one of the reasons why Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.

>>1424022
>Its because they hate brown people
Naturally. Everyone hates brown people.
>And want them all to live in nazi murder camps
So... undoing the damage caused by Democrats?

>>1424314
I'm talking about Paul Combetta who destroyed subpoenaed evidence, that he knew was subpoenaed, who then lied to investigators and was given immunity right afterwards. Because y'know that's how it normally works. When the police say they want evidence on my phone and I toss it into the ocean, they usually let me off with a warning.

>>1424003 (OP)
Good. Fuck Democrats

>>1424316
>>1424361
How does someone become this casually racist on the internet?

>>1424317
No retard, order of events is wrong.

Not
>When the police say they want evidence on my phone and I toss it into the ocean, they usually let me off with a warning.
Instead.
>When the police say they want evidence on my phone that I tossed in the ocean last week, they then go "well shit we should've asked before that"

>>1424403
>No retard, order of events is wrong.
No retard, YOU are wrong.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/the-fbi-files-on-clintons-emails/
>The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report.
I love how it's a fucking widely known fact that Paul Combetta deleted subpoenaed evidence - that he KNEW was subpoenaed, hence immunity - but according to you the evidence was never subpoenaed before it was destroyed. You got a source to back that up?

>>1424403
Oh and here's another source, for funsies.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/doj-gave-immunity-to-person-who-destroyed-clinton-emails/
>He referred to this recollection as an "oh shit" moment and decided to delete the emails, all the while knowing the preservation order existed.

>>1424317
>who then lied to investigators
Proofs?
>and was given immunity right afterwards
He was given immunity to testify.
>Because y'know that's how it normally works
Yes, giving immunity to witnesses so they can't invoke the 5th and can therefore be forced to testify is how it normally works. You will note the evidence Combetta destroyed wasn't against him. They didn't give 2 shits about him.

>>1424424
Don't bother waiting for a real response. He's just going to quote Jim Jordan and Comer's pro-Trump conspiracy theories.

>>1424424
>Proofs?
>The same report also revealed that Combetta was given immunity from prosecution by the Department of Justice, even after he apparently lied to investigators during his first interview months earlier.
Retard.
>He was given immunity to testify.
Against his boss (Hillary) who more than likely gave him the order to wipe everything.
>You will note the evidence Combetta destroyed wasn't against him.
Except for the part where he destroyed Fucking - Subpoenaed - Evidence! Are you kidding me right now? This is the equivalent of you saying the police gave immunity to a hitman so they could get the mob boss who gave the order - only problem there is the hitman didn't follow through with his side of the deal to ID his boss.

This is just further proof that the FBI had no interest in prosecuting Hillary for anything.

>>1424426
Oh please jump in. The water's warm. Let's hear your fucking take on this obvious corruption.

>>1424317
>>1424424
Also, if the feds couldn't prove Combetta lied in his testimony, the case is already fucked.

Congrats, you have no communications showing Hillary ordered the deletion after the subpoena. In fact, you have evidence to the contrary, Hillary ordering their preservation. And the guy who did the deletion won't implicate Clinton. gg no re

>>1424428
>Against his boss (Hillary)
He didn't work for Hillary, you fucking dipshit. He worked for a digital services company that Hillary used to store her shit. You're buttmad at a random IT guy and don't even know it.
>who more than likely gave him the order to wipe everything.
PROVE IT
>Except for the part where he destroyed Fucking - Subpoenaed - Evidence!
Yeah, why the fuck do you think he didn't want to testify?
>only problem there is the hitman didn't follow through with his side of the deal to ID his boss.
It wasn't a deal to ID his boss. It wasn't a deal at all. He was forced to testify. You can't shut the fuck up if you get immunity. You have to talk and if you lie you risk getting hit with perjury charges. This sort of shit happens all the fucking time, you fucking buffoon.

If you have proof he lied, send it to the feds. I'm sure they'd love to slap his ass with perjury charges and lock up Hillary. They didn't have proof of jack shit against Hillary without him and he gave them nothing.

>This is just further proof that the FBI had no interest in prosecuting Hillary for anything.
Explain what they could have done differently to prosecute Hillary? Their case dead ended with Combetta. They had no incriminatory emails recovered from the server and no comms showing Hillary ordered the server's destruction.

>>1424429
Do you get your talking points directly from Jim Jordan or do you wait for Fox or Newsmax to predigest and chew the meat for you?

>>1424433
>Also, if the feds couldn't prove Combetta lied in his testimony,
I guess you're just going to keep ignoring the part where the articles says he lied to investigators.

>He didn't work for Hillary, you fucking dipshit.
HE DEALT WITH HER PRIVATE SERVER YOU FUCKING LYING FAGGOT! The one she wasn't supposed to have? The one with all the emails he deleted?

>PROVE IT
We can't because he got immunity! Wow you are the most bad-faith piece of shit on 4chan right now. You are desperate to simp for Hillary.

>Yeah, why the fuck do you think he didn't want to testify?
Because he knew damn well what he was doing was already illegal before the order to delete them came. But no I'm sure he decided to delete them, and risk jail time for deleting subpoenaed evidence, out of the kindness of his own heart - and the DOJ that really, really wanted to investigate Hillary was disappointed, but they felt so much pity for this loyal employee that they decided to give him immunity rather than ruin his life.

Puh-lease.

>You can't shut the fuck up if you get immunity.
You also can't be charged with the crime if you get immunity, so you can say whatever the fuck you want whether it's true or not.

>This sort of shit happens all the fucking time, you fucking buffoon.
Show me a similar case, you fucking monkey, where they're investigating a top guy up the food chain so they catch an underling destroying evidence and they give him immunity in exchange for him NOT telling them who gave the order. Go ahead I'll wait.

>Explain what they could have done differently to prosecute Hillary?
Don't give fucking immunity to the guy who got caught destroying evidence they ordered to be preserved? Put the screws to him until he either cuts a deal to finger his boss, or commits suicide like Epstein did.

>They had no incriminatory emails recovered from the server and no comms showing Hillary ordered the server's destruction.
BECAUSE HE DELET- holy shit I'm talking to a retard.

>>1424436
You gonna jump in and say something important, or keep cheerleading for your boyfriend?

>>1424437
>You also can't be charged with the crime if you get immunity, so you can say whatever the fuck you want whether it's true or not.
NTA but that's not how immunity works you retard. Why the fuck would you ever offer it if that's the case?

>>1424440
>NTA but that's not how immunity works you retard.
Tell me, how are they going to prove he's lying after he destroyed evidence?
>Why the fuck would you ever offer it if that's the case?
Because the FBI didn't give a shit about charging Hillary with anything.

So now that we've gone over the history of this political stunt, shall we get back to Texas or do you want to keep getting fucked up on Hillary. I'm good either way.

>>1424437
>I guess you're just going to keep ignoring the part where the articles says he lied to investigators.
Under oath. The testimony under oath. After he got immunity.
>HE DEALT WITH HER PRIVATE SERVER YOU FUCKING LYING FAGGOT
Managed by Platte River Network, dipshit. It was a cloud server. You think he was tinkering on that shit in her bathroom?

YOU ARE BUTTMAD AT A RANDOM IT GUY, YOU DUMB COCKSUCKER!!!

>We can't because he got immunity!
The immunity doesn't cover the testimony he gave under immunity. If the only way to prove the guy you think lied lied is with the help of the alleged liar, the case is dead.

>Because he knew damn well what he was doing was already illegal before the order to delete them came
The deletion order before the subpoena or the one you have no evidence of after? Cause during the earlier order, the random server company hosting a random server did not, in fact do jack shit illegal. Hence why they were never charged with anything.

>But no I'm sure he decided to delete them, and risk jail time for deleting subpoenaed evidence, out of the kindness of his own heart
Pretty sure he just panicked and thought he'd be in the shit with his bosses for not doing it beforehand when he was supposed to.
>but they felt so much pity for this loyal employee
>>https://www.appliedtech.us/resource-hub/employee-spotlight-paul-combetta/
>This month, we get the pleasure of getting to know Paul Combetta, a Senior Systems Engineer at Platte River Networks. Paul has been with us for a full 15 years.
>they decided to give him immunity rather than ruin his life.
They gave him immunity to force him to testify about any connection the deletion might have had to Clinton after the subpoena. He testified there was none.

You're assblasted reality isn't what you want it to be.

>You also can't be charged with the crime if you get immunity, so you can say whatever the fuck you want whether it's true or not.
LMAO, no. God, you're not worth my time, are you?

>>1424440
>Why the fuck would you ever offer it if that's the case?
Immunity isn't the same thing as a pardon. It doesn't exonorate you from crimes you've already committed, it prevents you from being persecuted for crimes you may have committed. You don't need to admit guilt in order to qualify for immunity, but you do need to admit guilt for a pardon.

>>1424441
Anon immunity is dependent on you telling the fucking truth. That's the whole point; it's not "You're immune to everything including perjury so you can just say the person did nothing on the stand and then walk away because we're morons". If they found he lied, he loses immunity and goes straight to jail for perjury.

>If the only way to prove the guy you think lied lied is with the help of the alleged liar, the case is dead.

>>1424444
>Anon immunity is dependent on you telling the fucking truth.
So, again, how can the FBI prove he's lying if he deleted communications with Hillary?

>>1424442
>YOU ARE BUTTMAD AT A RANDOM IT GUY, YOU DUMB COCKSUCKER!!!
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips
Read, nigga.

>>1424446
I'm not the anon you're arguing with. I'm pointing out immunity doesn't work how you think it does. And obviously they know, or at the very least are sure, he isn't lying because otherwise his immunity deal would've been revoked.

If your whole thing is "he lied on the stand then covered up that he lied so well we can't prove that he lied!" well congrats you're basically admitting they had no case.

>>1424446
>how can the FBI prove he's lying if he deleted communications with Hillary?
The feds have access to every telecommunications asset in the country. No single message has been truly anonymous or unrecoverable since 9/11. There are server banks all across the United States dedicated to acting as a repository for emails, phone logs, IMs etc etc to suss out terrorists and radicals.
The only reason why the feds don't go after everybody is because of the logistics involved. Federal law is such an obfuscated clusterfuck that the FBI can pick and choose which people to prosecute at their discretion. Not even harddrive destruction can totally erase data, you would need to hit it with multiple passes of DBAN and then physically hide it somewhere.
tl;dr The FBI could've prosecuted him, but they didn't want to for one reason or another.

>>1424448
>And obviously they know, or at the very least are sure, he isn't lying because otherwise his immunity deal would've been revoked.
Once again, they have no way of proving this because he deleted the evidence of the connection. They can't revoke his immunity on a gut feeling.
>If your whole thing is "he lied on the stand then covered up that he lied so well we can't prove that he lied!" well congrats you're basically admitting they had no case.
They would have if they didn't give immunity to the guy who got caught destroying evidence in an investigation. Or better yet, if they confiscated the evidence before anyone could destroy it instead of waiting three weeks for someone to get rid of it.

And again I'd like to point out that this whole argument started today because that other faggot claimed the "order of events is wrong" and that the evidence was destroyed before it could be subpoenaed.

I think we've finally driven home that he destroyed subpoenaed evidence, but we'll see after this post.

>>1424449
Then why do they need to subpoena evidence they already have?

>>1424452
Because those databases are owned by AT&T. Also, because that eeks on the territory of the CIA.

>>1424450
>They would have if they didn't give immunity to the guy who got caught destroying evidence in an investigation. Or better yet, if they confiscated the evidence before anyone could destroy it instead of waiting three weeks for someone to get rid of it.
1. If they found he got rid of evidence that would erase his immunity. That's how immunity deals work, which is something YOU AREN'T FUCKING GRASPING
2. No one knows (or at least can prove) the emails were deleted after the subpoena. A reddit post is the most circumstantial thing on this earth, and if she deleted them after she left office, it does seem like that'd be operating within protocol and thus not prosecutable.

>>1424455
>If they found he got rid of evidence
He did. How many articles do I need to post that tells you he deleted subpoenaed evidence before you get it?
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-server-testimony-20160912-snap-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-reportedly-granted-immunity-to-computer-expert-who-deleted-clinton-emails?msockid=29c13ee7046e67311af42b1f05ef6620
Do you understand now that he deleted subpoenaed evidence? Or do I have to keep googling links for you to ignore?

>No one knows (or at least can prove) the emails were deleted after the subpoena.
her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena.
>three weeks after the subpoena.
>after the subpoena.
>SUBPOENA
I'm at a loss. I really don't know how you can't understand this. Like I could be playing Cyberpunk right now instead of wasting my time arguing with someone who can't read.

>>1424461
>The FBI said when Clinton’s team called Platte River Networks – the Denver-based IT company where Combetta worked – in March 2015, Combetta said he realized he didn’t follow a December 2014 directive from Clinton’s lawyers to have the emails deleted. He then used BleachBit to delete the messages in the days after the meeting with her lawyers.

Yeah so if the order was in December, and he did it without being told by Clinton, there's not much they can do.

>>1424463
>However, in the May interview, he said at the time he deleted the emails “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River network.
Unfortunately we'll never be able to tie Hillary to the order. At best they'll continue with the story that he acted on his own, and should be in jail if not for the DOJ giving him immunity for nothing.

Either way he deleted subpoenaed evidence, that he knew was subpoenaed, that we know was deleted after the subpoena, subpoenaed, subpoenaed, subpoenaed, I'm just going to start saying subbed in lieu of that word because I'm tired of typing it. I really don't know how to drive this home to that other anon enough.

>>1424447
>Read, nigga.
>https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips
>Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks
You first.

>>1424447
>Read, nigga.
>article starts with a giant picture of the dude with a plaque in front of him that reads Mr. Combetta: Platte River Networks
I reiterate

>YOU ARE BUTTMAD AT A RANDOM IT GUY, YOU DUMB COCKSUCKER!!!

>>1424465
So in conclusion if you say Hillary did nothing wrong then you'd be correct and factually accurate.

>>1424487
>>1424488
>DURR HE WORKS FOR AN IT COMPANY
And? Why would this be a defense?

Let's say for the sake of argument that this is true and this is just 1 guy out of 50 other IT guys that deleted subbed evidence? And?

(btw the FBI said there were only three people who had access to those emails and could have removed them, so it's not an entire building of random people on a cloud server.)

The point still remains that the FBI had someone dead-to-rights and instead of charging him they gave him immunity.

Unless you're trying to go with the Hillary didn't know him defense, like >>1424509 , which doesn't work since Cheryl Mills met with Combetta within a week of the deletions. So it's not just "A RANDOM IT GUY" when Hillary's top advisor is meeting with him.

But I'm sure there was no collusion to get rid of evidence. Nothing like that in conversations between the two... if only we could ask him - oh wait! He has immunity so he doesn't have to do shit.

>>1424552
Hillary's top advisor met with lots of people she barely knew. So what. We've heard all your bullshit before, and you whining about Hillary is hilarious when Trump was charged with obstruction of justice for conspiring to defy a grand jury subpoena demanding the return of all classified documents, and for misleading his attorneys who were trying to comply. On top of that he has 34 felony convictions. It makes the shit you're whining about seem so petty and paltry comparatively.

>>1424574
>Hillary's top advisor met with lots of people she barely knew. So what.
So he wasn't just "A RANDOM IT GUY". And your whataboutism to Trump corruption is laughably meaningless, considering Loretta Lynch refused to recuse herself even though she was having secret meetings with Bill. But yeah no foul play in her investigation whatsoever.

>>1424578
I haven't heard such a convoluted connecting of unconnectable dots since the Benghazi hearings, which failed and led to the email conspiracy theory you're still desperately trying to make real here today.

>>1424582
And I haven't seen a better example of political bias and corruption in the FBI.

>>1424586
>muh deep state
Yeah yeah yeah it's like you are recounting your greatest memes

>>1424552
>Why would this be a defense?
The dude had no direct connection to Hillary and therefore could not have been part of a criminal conspiracy absent further unidentified conspirators you have no evidence for. Beyond that being a corporate contractor eliminates any criminal motive in the deletion.

>btw the FBI said there were only three people who had access to those emails and could have removed them, so it's not an entire building of random people on a cloud server
Every person working for a company doesn't handle every account.

>which doesn't work since Cheryl Mills met with Combetta within a week of the deletions
She also emailed him not to fucking delete anything that month. Also, I'd think it is fairly normal that Hillary's right hand woman was in contact with the company helping her team create copies of her emails to turn over to the feds. You seem to be ignoring he was assisting with that.

>So it's not just "A RANDOM IT GUY"
It is when he has no fucking connection to Clinton outside of as the person in charge of her shit for the IT company hosting her fucking server. Any random ass employee could have been assigned that gig. You're chasing ghosts.

>But I'm sure there was no collusion to get rid of evidence. Nothing like that in conversations between the two... if only we could ask him - oh wait! He has immunity so he doesn't have to do shit.
He literally had to testify without lying. As opposed to just pleading the 5th without immunity. You have jack shit either way.

>>1424592
>The dude had no direct connection to Hillary
Besides direct communication with one of her inner circle.

>Every person working for a company doesn't handle every account.
Which is my point. How is chanting "A RANDOM IT GUY" help your argument when the FBI narrowed it down to only three people who had access to her emails, and we already know which of them deleted them after a conversation with Mills.

>helping her team create copies of her emails to turn over to the feds.
Including the deleted ones?

>Any random ass employee could have been assigned that gig.
And he's the one who got assigned to that gig. That doesn't just make him "A RANDOM IT GUY"... hell if anything him being "A RANDOM IT GUY" hurts your argument because "A RANDOM IT GUY" wouldn't go out of their way to destroy subbed evidence for A RANDOM BOSS.

>He literally had to testify without lying.
Which you cannot prove if he is or isn't lying because he deleted the evidence. How many times do I have to say this?

>>1424593
>Besides direct communication with one of her inner circle.
In connection to the run of the mill job he was doing for her the same as other clients he deals with. You're trying to turn a contractor into a stooge.

>Which is my point.
No, it isn't. You're trying to imply he had personal ties to the matter. He didn't. It was just a job to him. A job he fucked up, but a job nonetheless. Any other employee of the company could have been in the same position, working as Clinton's IT guy at her server host.

>Including the deleted ones?
Why would she be making copies of emails she intended to delete?

>because "A RANDOM IT GUY" wouldn't go out of their way to destroy subbed evidence for A RANDOM BOSS.
He would if he were an idiot and thought said boss would be mad he fucked up handling a server for an important client by not deleting a bunch of emails when requested.

>Which you cannot prove if he is or isn't lying because he deleted the evidence. How many times do I have to say this?
I don't need to prove he isn't lying. You need to prove he is lying. That's how our criminal justice system works. You could do that by having someone willing to testify he lied or communications showing he lied or physical evidence showing he lied. Take your pick.

Ultimately that's where you're at. You have no evidence Clinton did anything illegal and your case dead ends with this shmuck. I expect you'd still be bitching about him even if he had managed to delete the emails before the subpoena.

The most hilarious thing about all this is you've invented a grand conspiracy you can't prove to cover up a grand conspiracy you can't even describe. Never mind that a bunch of deleted emails were recovered and none show criminal activity there must have been deleted work emails showing criminal activity on the part of Clinton. What criminal activity? Who knows and who cares. She must be guilty of something because she's Hillary Clinton.

You have jack shit covering up less than jack shit

>>1424596
>In connection to the run of the mill job
Of deleting subbed evidence.

>No, it isn't. You're trying to imply he had personal ties to the matter.
No I'm trying to explain the simple concept of "delegation" to you people. Hillary doesn't have to go down there personally and tell Combetta to break the law. She has people to do shit for her.

>Why would she be making copies of emails she intended to delete?
The subbed emails they were told not to delete.

>He would if he were an idiot
This guy has been doing IT work since he was 18 years old. He had 15 years with a company that is so high level they worked with top government officials like Hillary Clinton. At some point the playing dumb tactic doesn't work.

>I don't need to prove he isn't lying. You need to prove he is lying.
And nobody can because he deleted all the fucking evidence.
>That's how our criminal justice system works.
No our criminal justice system isn't supposed to give immunity to RANDOM IT GUYS who break the law before they can claim someone gave them orders. But the FBI deliberately fucked that up because they didn't want to pursue charges against Hillary in the first place. And just because you have immunity doesn't magically disable the ability to lie.

>The most hilarious thing about all this is you've invented a grand conspiracy you can't prove to cover up a grand conspiracy you can't even describe.
I've pointed out several abnormalities with this case and you keep hand-waving every example away, even as other anons in this thread cry WELLWHATABOUTTRUMPISM for shit that he did.

Arguing with leftists is a waste of my time. You don't want proof, unless MSNBC tells you and it's aimed at Republicans. You don't give a shit about corruption unless it's orange man. Look at the Seth Rich stuff: everything from the meta data suggests it was downloaded onto a thumb drive but NOOOOOO, apparently some other dude on the other side of the planet just made the files with insane transfer speeds.

i hate this fucking country so much. we'd might as well just put the Z on our military uniforms already, the democraps and republicunts are the same.

>>1424637
>the democraps and republicunts are the same.
Not even close, and the false equivalence is a Republican?Russian talking point.