Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 486 posts

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#41

Post by mcphage »

jimmywanger wrote: post #26

The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns. Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time. The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tri…

> Most people do believe that where there's smoke, there's fire.

Which is why continuously pushing smoke, even when you know there's no fire, is such an effective strategy. How many Benghazi hearings were there, that all came to the same conclusion? But people hear "oh, there's another Benghazi hearing, it must mean something that there's so many!" even though everyone involved knows that it means nothing.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#42

Post by losvedir »

xenadu02 wrote: post #11

> "As a PST file or exported MSG files, this could be done though, yes? > The issue is that these emails involve the private email address of someone you'd recognize, and we're trying to replace it with a placeholder address as to not expose it." From the way it reads it looks like he is asking how to bulk remove an email address from the archived messages so when they are turned over they don't contain the redacted…

> I assume it would be embarrassing and/or problematic to share the email addresses of various ambassadors and other government officials in public records. You could also read something nefarious into it if you want.

That's what I'm trying to understand here. Was it the case that they were just going to hand over the whole DB regardless, and are trying to keep personal info private (but still, e.g., leave the name so it's clear who's in the conversation)? That's, I suppose, kind of reasonable.

On the other hand, I'm vaguely aware that at least in some cases there's a legal discovery process, where you don't just hand over everything, but do certain searches for "relevant" info and hand over that [0]. Is that true or at all relevant here? That would be quite a bit more nefarious if they were trying to avoid the discovery mining process by changing the email addresses (without flat out deleting the emails). But it seems like instead of doing that why not just delete them?

[0] http://enterpriseit.co/microsoft-exchange/search-all-users-m...

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#43

Post by mcphage »

School-Cotton wrote: post #31
xenadu02 wrote: post #11

> "As a PST file or exported MSG files, this could be done though, yes? > The issue is that these emails involve the private email address of someone you'd recognize, and we're trying to replace it with a placeholder address as to not expose it." From the way it reads it looks like he is asking how to bulk remove an email address from the archived messages so when they are turned over they don't contain the redacted…

> The Bush administration ran private email servers to avoid FOIA requests, then nuked millions of saved emails when his term was up to avoid handing them over. Who cares? "But the other guys are corrupt too!" is not a great argument for your candidate. > I didn't see any huge circus or massive outcry about that. We can all agree this is a problem.

> We can all agree this is a problem.

Funny how nobody seemed to think so until now.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#44

Post by mindcrime »

takeda wrote: post #40

And she still will be elected, because this year we had to have joke candidates on both sides. I guess it's probably the best time to vote 3rd party.

I honestly can't understand how anybody is considering voting for Clinton or Trump. If this world was anything close to reasonable, Gary Johnson would win in a landslide. shrug

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#45

Post by kreneskyp »

adam12 wrote: post #24
xenadu02 wrote: post #11

> "As a PST file or exported MSG files, this could be done though, yes? > The issue is that these emails involve the private email address of someone you'd recognize, and we're trying to replace it with a placeholder address as to not expose it." From the way it reads it looks like he is asking how to bulk remove an email address from the archived messages so when they are turned over they don't contain the redacted…

> From the way it reads it looks like he is asking how to bulk remove an email address from the archived messages so when they are turned over they don't contain the redacted email address. You don't redact email addresses when you are subpoenaed by the f'ing FBI. edit: My bad, it was the House Select Committee on Benghazi (July 2014). The FBI didn't take custody of the server until August 2015.

They were subpoenaed by Congress, but not until March 4, 2015. The initial request for emails was made by the State Department.

Edit: small mistake. The initial request did come from Congress and went through the State Department. It was not a subpoena though, that came later.

Edit 2: Since it was clear to some, the reddit post was dated July 24th, 2014. That's 7 months, prior to the first subpoena.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#46

Post by douche »

skrowl wrote: post #8
Mendenhall wrote: post #4

What amazes me besides him using familiar handle is that even after the investigation he left all those reddit posts up. Then he decides to try and delete them now after they are found.

What amazes me is that a reddit user found it but somehow all of the FBI investigators didn't.

I'm not sure how motivated the FBI really was to find anything. You start looking too hard and I'm certain you'd turn up a lot of dirt in some very inconvenient places, at all points on the political spectrum.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#47

Post by imron »

EpicEng wrote: post #36
protomyth wrote: post #9

Regardless of your politics or beliefs of what happened, I think a simple bit of advice is truth: If you are going to run an e-mail server in difficult circumstances then hire a System Administrator who does not need to post obviously problematic questions to Reddit.

Under a freaking user name that can be easily traced back to them. I mean, seriously?

And this is why the NSA collecting all data on everyone should have people worried. Sure, it's just pictures of your cat and 'my life is boring, they can spy on me all they want because they won't find anything interesting"

And then 2 years later your post on an internet forums about your missing dog helps tie you the destruction of evidence.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#48

Post by jimmywanger »

imron wrote: post #38
jimmywanger wrote: post #26

The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns. Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time. The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tri…

> as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of ~~clowns~~ as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of criminals who delete incriminating evidence . FTFY

> being run by a bunch of criminals who delete incriminating evidence.

I have no problems accepting the fact that politicians might hire crooks to do some things that are extra legal. The fact that they're incompetent criminals who get caught and who don't understand the internet, that worries me.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#49

Post by Tinyyy »

peteretep wrote: post #32

> Citation needed if you're > going to "correct the record." This is not Reddit, and it is not a place for accusing people of being paid shills. Please desist.

Why is this getting down voted? There's no place for these accusations on HN. Using them to silence discussions is very arrogant because you're implying that people disagreeing with you are not capable of independent thought.
Post reply on HN