House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by saboot » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:01 AM UTC

saboot wrote: post #325

imron wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Willfully ignoring that these people are attempting to get organized, and co-opting whatever gets them traction, is unhelpful at best and dangerous. You've got it backwards. Allowing their words to control your actions gives them power over you. Are 'dank memes' now racist also just like Pepe? Imagine instead of 'It's going to involve pepe' he said 'It's going to involve breathing air and drinking water', or some o…

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that they are intentionally using pepe memes to make their ideas seem innocuous. And they get retweeted widely. It's a fact, choose to do what you want with it. If you want to blow that up into a giant hyperbole that's on you. Making people aware of what is going on doesn't limit anyone's speech or actions.

I can't reply to you, but I suggest you try replying directly to my points instead of injecting your own political agenda.

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

#332

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:02 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #291

mozumder wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I used my personal email address for all communication with my companies clients for work, they'd demand all of those emails when I left the company. But they wouldn't be able to get them, no matter how hard they demanded. Personal email addresses exist. Companies have to deal with that fact.

> But they wouldn't be able to get them, no matter how hard they demanded I work in securities. My work emails must be archived. If I send work email from my personal email (a) that is potentially illegal and (b) I must promptly turn them over to my archives. If I refuse b, I face civil and potentially criminal censure. Blows me away how finance has stricter controls than the people conducting bombing raids.

This is not a relevant analogy because it's not under dispute that Clinton used her email address for personal conversations, and there is nothing in the Reddit post or the Hill news story that indicates whether we're talking about personal or official business emails.

If your employer tried to force Gmail to turn over to them all your emails with your spouse and friends, no matter the subject or content, you and Google would fight it. And rightly so.

The House GOP members of the Benghazi committee are trying their hardest to get their hands on Clinton's personal emails, to dig for embarrassing messages to release. They already have her official business emails; they have had them for years. And they have openly admitted that the entire purpose of the committee is to undercut her presidential campaign.

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

#333

Post by morgante » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:03 AM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #328

morgante wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. This is not a pro-Jewish statement. It's a textbook anti-semite stereotype.

How is it anti? It's a positive stereotype.

I'm done here.

If you really cannot understand how stereotyping an entire ethnicity as short money-counters is offensive, you are far beyond help. I should have figured that from the start.

It depresses me that such retrograde, Nazi-level antisemitism is tolerated on Hacker News.

As a Jew, I am offended. And I'm the group who that statement is supposed to "flatter." Think of the Black accountants who Trump apparently thinks are incompetent purely due to the color of their skin. This shit belongs in the 1940s, not 2016.

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

#334

Post by jljljl » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:03 AM UTC

001sky wrote: post #273

mcphage wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Couple of points -- (1) Colin powell's leaked e-mails apparently called the meetings a circus and a sideshow but also placed blame at the feet of HRC for outcome of that episode. that last bit isn't always quoted in the media. (2) The leak to the NYT about the server that broke this story appeared has been originated by the Obama administration. They were seeking to clip her wings as whispers about her policy differe…

Do you have a source for #2? It defies belief, why would Obama clip the wings of his likely democratic successor, knowing that a Republican presidential would endanger Obamacare and several other major achievements of his administration?

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

#335

Post by joemi » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:08 AM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #201

joemi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible that by Bush setting a precedence, it being done now is OK?

Why would that be the case? How do you think the law works? Just because the President breaks the law doesn't magically change the law...

Honestly, I don't know the applicable laws very well (or at all). This was just an honest question.

Given all the contention over the HRC email thing and specifically over this reddit revelation, I'm not so sure that the situation we have is clearly defined within the laws (otherwise why wouldn't everything be clear cut and decided already?).

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

#336

Post by joemi » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:12 AM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #201

joemi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible that by Bush setting a precedence, it being done now is OK?

Why would that be the case? How do you think the law works? Just because the President breaks the law doesn't magically change the law...

Also, precedence can definitely matter in law sometimes. For instance, if someone does not enforce a patent or a copyright, that can sometimes lead to loss of such patent/copyright protections. Indeed, this isn't all that similar of a situation, but hey, who knows? I'm not a lawyer.

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

#337

Post by imron » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:13 AM UTC

saboot wrote: post #331

saboot wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that they are intentionally using pepe memes to make their ideas seem innocuous. And they get retweeted widely. It's a fact, choose to do what you want with it. If you want to blow that up into a giant hyperbole that's on you. Making people aware of what is going on doesn't limit anyone's speech or actions.

I can't reply to you, but I suggest you try replying directly to my points instead of injecting your own political agenda.

You can reply, you just need to wait a few minutes - it’s an HN feature to prevent people replying in haste.

I have no political agenda. I’m not from the US, I’m not in the US, I can’t vote in this election. I have no horse in this race. I’m an outsider looking in on the stupidity (on both sides).

I am addressing your points - or at least thought I was. Your point as it appears to me (feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you) was ‘we need to make people aware of how these white supremacists are promoting their ideals’.

My point is ‘this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect, it inadvertently helps promote such ideals and gives these people cultural ground that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to occupy. Giving any sort of import to their ravings, makes them more important than they deserve to be, and gives them a degree of control over your actions.'

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

#338

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:14 AM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #303

mozumder wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yep, but it became under their jurisdiction when it was discovered that she did government business via the private server. No, it didn't. It's still her private email account. They can request nicely to see them, but they can't forcibly see them without a warrant.

This is wrong, as a matter of law. It doesn't matter who set up the email account - any emails you generate as part of official business are official records. They're government property.

> any emails you generate as part of official business are official records. They're government property.

But not personal emails.

Read the Hill article very carefully and see if it identifies whether we're talking about official business or personal. It doesn't.

The House GOP is careful to avoid making that distinction, because their goal is to feed a sense of impropriety--a goal which seems to be well-met here on HN, judging by the comments.

But the distinction matters, it does exist in law, and it is based on content and parties, not servers. Sending official State business email from a server does not automatically expose the full content of that server to federal record-keeping laws.

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

#339

Post by alecco » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:17 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #317

alecco wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now this thread is below the fold showing 254 points on the FP and when you get in it says 312 Screenshots http://sli.mg/a/wMhiQp

I'm confused about what you're trying to point out here, but if there's a question I'd be happy to answer.

How did the thread suddenly drop below the fold? How was the thread marked as 254 points on the home page and at the same time 312 inside the thread? Thanks

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

#340

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:19 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #228

mozumder wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yep, but it became under their jurisdiction when it was discovered that she did government business via the private server. No, it didn't. It's still her private email account. They can request nicely to see them, but they can't forcibly see them without a warrant.

Maybe you should tell the State Department that: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0801b24d47274f0fac60beedc5f2e... ^ Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday...The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public r…

> The State Department did not get a warrant before asking Clinton and her staff to turn over emails that went through Clinton's server.

Only emails related to official business. The distinction is crucial to these questions of law, but is consistently forgotten or elided, even by this Hill article.