If it was not improper, why hide it, Claudette Newman?

After my blog about Claudette Newman's Facebook friends and conflicts of interest associated with such friendships, it was reported to me that the following happened:

Claudette Newman hid her Facebook profile, or, in the alternative, blocked me and my friends from seeing it, and eliminated stenographers that were previously listed as her friends, from her friends, at least in open access.

So, my question is - if there was nothing wrong with such friendships, what was the need to hide them?

And isn't destruction of incriminating evidence in itself incriminating evidence?

And aren't such actions of a law clerk - and of a judge of the Town of Butternuts - undermine public trust in the integrity of the legal profession and of the judiciary?

I know that nobody will ever prosecute Newman in a disciplinary proceedings, no matter what she does - because working for a judge and being a judge in New York is a shield from the reach of any law.

And yet - shouldn't Newman at least have waited with hiding her profile and removing stenographers from her friend-list?

Nothing like getting caught with you hand in a cookie jar, isn't it, Claudette Newman?