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

131–140 of 486 posts

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

#131

Post by jimmywanger »

discodave wrote: post #77
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…

> The actual facts aside I happen to believe that facts are important in a Presidential race. Essentially your response is repeating talking points of the Trump campaign... which is OK, 1st amendment and all that but to pretend like you're making a constructive addition to the discussion / debate is folly. Right now America has a choice between Trump, a racist, mysoginist demagogue who has never held a public office…

I see that you're having a bit of trouble parsing my statements. Allow me to help.

>but to pretend like you're making a constructive addition to the discussion / debate is folly.

That's silly. I'm just saying that all these things happened. Facts, if you will. These things definitely happened and were reported ad nauseum. The terror attacks, Clinton passing out, her basket of deplorables comment, those actually happened. And now this email thing.

These were Trump talking points long before the events happened.

Now, I think that her campaign staff could somehow spin this so that she comes out relatively unscathed, IF all these things didn't happen within about a week of each other. If this was spaced out over a month or so, we'd forget.

The way the timing is, no spin doctor in the world can buff this out.

I'm not advocating for either candidate, like you are, but I'm pointing out the fact that Clinton has pretty much made herself unelectable.

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

#132

Post by losvedir »

losvedir wrote: post #42
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 s…

As a follow up, I found this news article from Time[0], talking about a discovery process:

> Instead, as Clinton revealed Tuesday, her attorneys searched the trove of emails for certain email addresses and subjects. Baron argued that raises the possibility that they missed some emails that should have been saved for the public record.

> First, the lawyers searched all emails with a “.gov” email address in any address field, which yielded 27,500 emails—more than 90% of the total correspondence ultimately provided to State.

Those matching emails were turned over on Dec. 5, 2015 and Combetta posted on July 24, 2015. The optics of trying to change the email addresses ahead of a search by her lawyers for certain email addresses to decide what to turn over are certainly not great.

[0] http://time.com/3740357/hillary-clinton-emails-search/

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

#133

Post by WalterSear »

leurfete wrote: post #105
discodave wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The actual facts aside I happen to believe that facts are important in a Presidential race. Essentially your response is repeating talking points of the Trump campaign... which is OK, 1st amendment and all that but to pretend like you're making a constructive addition to the discussion / debate is folly. Right now America has a choice between Trump, a racist, mysoginist demagogue who has never held a public office…

"a racist, mysoginist[sic] demagogue" "Hillary may have issues but she is also possibly the most experienced presidential candidate of the last couple of decades." s/Trump/Clinton/ and your statement: "Essentially your response is repeating talking points of the Trump campaign." serves as a valid critique of your own response. - Qualified for not, Clinton's corruption has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt ov…

At least vote. Write in your dog, if you have to. Otherwise future politicians won't aware that you will be at the poll, ready to vote for them, and they'll pander to someone else.

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

#134

Post by throwanem »

Mao_Zedang wrote: post #115
phil248 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many more decades of witch hunts and investigations before we find some damn fire?

It will happen pretty fast after a regime change, you cant expect dems to indite their own.

Except to the White House.

("Indict" means to charge with a crime. "Indite" is an archaic synonym for "invite". The joke I make about this confusion of terms originates with Shakespeare, so I think "indite" must be pretty archaic indeed!)

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

#135

Post by slantedview »

MichaelGG wrote: post #120
discodave wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The actual facts aside I happen to believe that facts are important in a Presidential race. Essentially your response is repeating talking points of the Trump campaign... which is OK, 1st amendment and all that but to pretend like you're making a constructive addition to the discussion / debate is folly. Right now America has a choice between Trump, a racist, mysoginist demagogue who has never held a public office…

Curious, do you have a handful of racist Trump quotes? Not stuff about illegals, but actual racist stuff (like not wanting to rent to blacks or something)? Trump aside, electing someone that's openly corrupt (DNC Wikileaks show they went against Bernie, against rules) seems to be far more dangerous to the future of the US and worldwide democracy. Up until now, corruption was sort of assumed, but if a publicly corrupt…

Quotes here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/...

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

#136

Post by bcg1 »

losvedir wrote: post #73
mindcrime wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As a Gary Johnson supporter myself, I freely admit that he has some extreme policies that can turn off a lot of voters. But what really frustrates me is how many people I've heard from that do prefer him but are afraid to vote for him because of the spoiler effect. I keep (wishful thinking) envisioning a scenario where he gets just enough votes that all of a sudden everyone on the fence realizes that maybe he could w…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect

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

#138

Post by losvedir »

FragenAntworten wrote: post #116
losvedir wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Gary Johnson supporter myself, I freely admit that he has some extreme policies that can turn off a lot of voters. But what really frustrates me is how many people I've heard from that do prefer him but are afraid to vote for him because of the spoiler effect. I keep (wishful thinking) envisioning a scenario where he gets just enough votes that all of a sudden everyone on the fence realizes that maybe he could w…

Critical mass?

Aha, yeah, that was it! Thanks. soemoea's "tipping point" is close, too.

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

#139

Post by jimmywanger »

minikites wrote: post #128
MichaelGG wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, do you have a handful of racist Trump quotes? Not stuff about illegals, but actual racist stuff (like not wanting to rent to blacks or something)? Trump aside, electing someone that's openly corrupt (DNC Wikileaks show they went against Bernie, against rules) seems to be far more dangerous to the future of the US and worldwide democracy. Up until now, corruption was sort of assumed, but if a publicly corrupt…

You don't think his rhetoric against undocumented immigrants is racist?

It's not "undocumented immigrants", it's "illegal immigrants".

If you enforce the law, they should be deported. Now they probably have very good reasons for immigrating, but the fact remains that they broke the law and our borders, and the job of the executive branch is to enforce the laws.

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

#140

Post by anon946 »

losvedir wrote: post #132
losvedir wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

As a follow up, I found this news article from Time[0], talking about a discovery process: > Instead, as Clinton revealed Tuesday, her attorneys searched the trove of emails for certain email addresses and subjects. Baron argued that raises the possibility that they missed some emails that should have been saved for the public record. > First, the lawyers searched all emails with a “.gov” email address in any address…

Wasn't it July 24, 2014?
Post reply on HN