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

361–370 of 486 posts

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

#361

Post by PKop »

koube wrote: post #341
PKop wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was held to a high standard in regards to OPSEC and security around classified information. Being as careless or purposely negligent as she was would have gotten me or anyone else court martialed. Hillary Clinton is a grown ass woman. She knows what she'd doing. She held a position of high responsibility, that deals with highly sensitive intel that impacts many facets of national s…

He's not talking about Powell's actions, where Powell recommended that Clinton use a private email. He's talking about the Bush administration, who avoided any email controversy on their private email server simply by deleting all 22 million emails. None of them broke any law, as laid out by Comey, who is famous for bashing heads with politicians. The law was executed by Comey faithfully and there was no crime to pro…

Ok so this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...

Yea that's terrible. If there was evidence of a (possibly) compromised, unsecured personal server, with high level officials talking about national security on it (including Bush) then I would think it would be even worse. But it is bad as is.

Also, I think Bush was a pretty terrible president in many respects and overall I'm not a fan of his.

If he used, or personally signed off on the use of, then he should have been held responsible. As well as others that did so themselves.

And Powell's recommendation that Clinton use a personal server is a perfect example of an arrogant, entitled, self-interested "leader" who only cares about political expediency and convenience for themselves at the expense of destroying government transparency and risking security leaks and hacks.

As a General who above all should know this better than anyone, he's a disgrace for recommending this, in my opinion.

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

#362

Post by hueving »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #265
learc83 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does that logically make all Trump supporters white supremacists? She never said that all Trump supporters are white supremacists. Did you listen to the quote? She said half of Trump supporters were racists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc... If you look at the polling data, her comments were pretty well supported.

Agreed. But some of us would go a little further. When you see a crowd around a bully and a blowhard, you can be sure they are almost all weak and cowardly.

Do you gain a sense of self-importance from making baseless accusations about millions of people you know nothing about? If not, what is the purpose?

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

#363

Post by hueving »

zimzam wrote: post #280
throwaway2016b wrote: post #195

Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a KKK member that the corrupt media refuses to mention. The kingmakers don't give a good goddamn about racism, except as a convenient narrative for purges. The 21st century equivalent of accusations of communism. https://i.sli.mg/FdqTAx.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd “It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He wa…

By the end of his career Robert Byrd was a repentant, former KKK member. Trump is being embraced by current, active KKK members. It is obtuse to pretend there's no difference between the two. From your own Wikipedia link: "In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I t…

>Trump is being embraced by current, active KKK members.

Being embraced by and embracing are very different things. There are statistically going to be child rapists that support both candidates, does that make them both child rapists?

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

#364

Post by abootstrapper »

mindcrime wrote: post #64
redblacktree wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use 'redblacktree' everywhere, but I'm very aware that it's public and traceable to my real-life identity. (though, there are unfortunately a few sites where someone else took the name... Notably Twitter)

Same boat here. I've been using "mindcrime" (and variations of that) regularly since about 1998 or so, and that's my username on many popular services (here, Twitter, GitHub, etc.) And it's trivially easy to link it to my real identify. shrug It's not something I consider a big deal. If I ever decide to do something nefarious, I'll create a new username.

You don't need to do something nefarious to regret the easy link, just offend the wrong person or group of people.

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

#365

Post by bcg1 »

morgante wrote: post #333
MichaelGG wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most people can see exactly who these people are, so leaving their comments up provides everyone with a persistent proof of their character.

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

#366

Post by ars »

snowwrestler wrote: post #332
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Goo…

> They already have her official business emails; they have had them for years.

No, they have the emails she claims are official. Big difference.

And she has zero credibility here. Negative credibility even, if she claims they have all the official emails you can be 100% sure they do not.

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

#367

Post by ars »

snowwrestler wrote: post #340
danso wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

It's not forgotten. No one believes her. (Except maybe you.)

She deleted the personal emails. Who does that? At most you don't turn them over, and then store them somewhere. Hard disks are cheap.

But no, she deleted them, making 100% sure no one could ever dispute her.

And I seem to remember an official email she did not disclose being discovered when the other person in the email disclosed it. So she is known to have withheld official emails.

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

#368

Post by adamrezich »

tootie wrote: post #226
hiram112 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because she's trying to assign guilt by association. I'm sure most people that support white supremacy are, in fact, Trump supporters. Does that logically make all Trump supporters white supremacists? And what is wrong with a bit of Nationalism? I personally feel globalization has most been a clever campaign to allow large business to play wage arbitrage. The current division of wealth in the US supports my idea.

White nationalists support him more than any other Republican candidate and it's largely because he panders to them with thinly veiled or occasionally overt racism.

I think everyone who supports a Republican candidate supports Trump more than any other Republican candidate at the moment, seeing as how, y'know, the party picked him to represent them in this election. This doesn't prove anything?

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

#369

Post by saboot »

imron wrote: post #360
saboot wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse. I see no problem in calling for people to reject it, and helping them identify them. You can look into american history and see that we have been through cycles like this before (example the 'Know Nothings' against the catholics…

> They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome. Which is a better way to show someone that they are not important: * Ignoring them * Giving their views countless press in order to discredit them I agree that calling out racism is important, but when it's just people spouting nonsense in their own little corner o…

You are wrongly characterizing what I am saying. Maybe try reading my original post again? People can only "allow" them to inject themselves into discourse when they have full consent, ie what their agenda is. Ignoring them doesn't silence them, nor makes it clear that their ideas are not acceptable.

Did I give you any links? I indicated that they are there and it is explicit and obvious.

If you cannot handle that a meme is ALSO (which means NOT ENTIRELY ie they dont own it) by people with a racist agenda then I frankly don't know what to say. The above people asked for proof, I gave it to them. Deal with the facts.

I'm not going to stop pointing out the tactics of white supremacists to inject themselves in mainstream culture.

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

#370

Post by imron »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #160
imron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> huh? It's horrifying https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr... Edit: In response to your edit, she's attacking a cartoon frog . In seriousness. Not only that, but she's trying to attribute characteristics to that frog that simply aren't any core part of why people post Pepe memes. All of that questions the sensibilities of her campaign. Basically her campaign is going all out trying to paint T…

> because that's really all they have left at this point It's really not, the reason why they keep hammering it home is because his vocal support among the fringes is unprecedented in the modern era. They've got plenty of things to attack him on - which they do.

A more cynical view is that they keep hammering it home because Trump's outreach to black voters is working enough that it has become electorally significant [0].

Polls show he currently has historically high support among black voters - and not just for himself, but out of any Republican candidate over the last few decades [1], and it's high enough that it could tip the election.

0: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ (scroll to 'by race/ethnicity').

1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/ho...

Post reply on HN