Replies

E-mail typically has numerous timestamps, from origination to receipt. Saying a timestamp is not accurate, without more, is not a useful contention.

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 23:28:00 -0500 [originator computer]
X-Received: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:26:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:26:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 23:40:06 -0500 (EST) [recipient mail server]

That is a real set of timestamps on a real e-mail. The timestamps in the middle rarely appear to a reader, originator or recipient timestamps are common. I can tell by inspection that the clock on the originator's computer in this case is running about a minute fast. The delay in receipt is "by design," where recipient pulls mail at definite times.

Rice hasn't denied sending the email on January 20. The "dispute" or "confusion" is whether she did so before or after Trump was sworn in, as if THAT makes any difference, other than a point of curiosity.

Most likely explanation for the hinky timestamp is that the computer she originated the memo to self from had a clock running fast.

...as Ambassador Rice departed the White House shortly before noon on January 20

How long does it take to get to and from her office?
And if the email wasn't sent from her office what computer did she use to send the email?

Rhetorical...just thinking out loud.