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

381–390 of 486 posts

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

#381

Post by ars »

mozumder wrote: post #372
ars wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And if they want more, they can always get a search warrant for them. That would help the Republicans gain back some credibility if they did. Right now everyone considers this a colossal waste of time, exemplary of Republican waste. Republicans are quickly finding that there are limits to their political powers. The public needs to be forceful in telling the House to stop wasting government money on Hillary emails.

> And if they want more, they can always get a search warrant for them.

How would that help? She deleted them.

> The public needs to be forceful in telling the House to stop wasting government money on Hillary emails.

No, they need to tell the House that Hillary should be indited, that she is not above the rules.

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

#382

Post by imron »

saboot wrote: post #369
imron wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Maybe try reading my original post again?

Ok, sure

> But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas

Yes. I am ignoring such people, because such tactics don't merit anything more. I would also ignore them if they claimed to be using Mickey Mouse or any other broadly popular icon to promote their ideas.

Because it deserves nothing more than a rolling of my eyes.

What I will call out is people (like the Clinton campaign) accepting or validating the idea that Pepe is somehow a racist, nazi frog.

> 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

I can handle it fine. It's the Clinton campaign (and surrogates) that are trying to actively associate Pepe as a symbol of racism and that's what I object to.

I think this conversation has reached the point where it is only going to go round in circles, so I'm bowing out now. Please enjoy the rest of your day.

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

#383

Post by adamrezich »

mozumder wrote: post #374
patrickg_zill wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you raise the point: where in the timeline of subpoenas or other legal requests does the attempt at modifying the email archive, does Combetta's post fit? My understanding: Combetta's post comes 1 day after Hillary had reached an agreement about turning them over. So was she dealing in bad faith with the govt? To be determined I guess?

Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. How is that "bad faith"? "Bad faith" is trying to expose personal email addresses to spammers. The House Republicans would love it if they could publicize her private personal email address. It would render it useless. The IT guy's job here is to make sure that doesn't happen.

>Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers.

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not.

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

#384

Post by koube »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #380
koube wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law behind the mishandling of classified information is from the 1950s and is mostly outdated. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... What is clear however, is that judging Clinton's mishandling of emails as a crime, when only one person in a hundred years in completely different circumstances has been prosecuted for the same crime, would be unprecedented. http://www.politico.com/blogs/un…

There was a guy prosecuted this year for similar security lapses. He went to jail. Snowden wrote in wired, though the article doesn't cover the latest news https://www.wired.com/2015/09/snowden-people-get-fired-prose...

Who should we believe? A writer from Wired Magazine? Or the director of the FBI who is also a lawyer?

There are several distinctions between the Clinton case and the Petraeus case.

* The Clinton case revolved around an unclassified context while the Petraeus case revolved around information taken from a classified context.

* The Clinton case involved data not marked classified (keep in mind emailing New York Times links to someone about about Snowden would be highly classified information), while the Petraeus case involved books that were clearly classified.

* The Clinton case showed no intent while the Petraeus case involved clear intent.

* The Clinton case involved an internal server while the Petraeus case involved open books given to his mistress.

* Clinton cooperated with the FBI while Petraeus intentionally misled the FBI.

Also, reminder that Snowden is a wanted criminal asking for a pardon for leaking 200,000 classified documents to the press, while taking refuge in the state of a geopolitical enemy. He will make scripted media appearances on behalf of Putin [1]. He is not a reliable source.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLC2WbIaq_Y

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

#385

Post by PostOnce »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #324
PostOnce wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the first thing you see visiting her site is an attack that you are forced to join in on, rather than talk of what she's going to do for the country. "Guy B is bad, elect me." is not as strong an argument as "I can and will do X to improve Y, guy B can't." And you still get to attack in B! How can I in good conscience vote either party? I would be infinitely amused if everyone without talking about it voted…

The problem with third parties is that it is, somehow, a vote for Trump[0] and Hillary[1]. Then there's the "lesser of two evils" fallacy[2] some Hillary supporters use. It's actually sad how people think there's no escape from the two party system. [0]: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201... [1]: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/08/11/nevertrump-yo... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…

It's not, though. If you dislike both of them equally, and it doesn't matter to you who wins, and you vote a third party, the difference to you is the same... you just have less on your conscience now because you didn't contribute to a particular side -- and there's the slight, lotto-winning-odds chance that everyone else quietly did the same thing...

What the hell, I'll give it a shot.

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

#386

Post by ookdatnog »

jimmywanger wrote: post #74
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you help me understand your point of view?

It might be kind of silly, but I think that the US government has to do a lot of shady things to ensure that we have a high standard of living and more of our share of natural resources. Look up the origin of the term "banana republic" if you don't believe me. Or just look through how many things we did in South/Central America due to the doctrine of manifest destiny. So if we have to do something bad to ensure a ste…

> So if we have to do something bad to ensure a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price, sure. I can accept that.

aka robbing from the poor and giving to the rich

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

#387

Post by harryf »

ksubedi wrote: post #13

I got this from reddit but someone made a wordpress page with 4 years of his account history : https://paulcombetta.wordpress.com

There's enough personal information in there to confirm his identity - a picture of him with that dog would already be enough.

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

#388

Post by colemickens »

adamrezich wrote: post #368
tootie wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Other than the fact that dozens of prominent Republicans have rejected him? Including former Republican Presidents of the United States... who have come out and said they will vote for HRC, and that they do so because they can't bring themselves to vote for a tyrannical monster?

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

#389

Post by DanielBMarkham »

cookiecaper wrote: post #343
danso wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The removal of private email addresses should be left to the State Department who was in charge of releasing those emails. In the emails released so far, Clinton's actual address has been removed from the To: field (physically, as in it was whited-out) as is at least one name from the From: field http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs... But I could see this as a result of incompetency, that is,…

I think people are being way too harsh on this guy. Most people make a habit of using the same username everywhere and it's not a problem until there's a sudden national interest in every cat photo they've commented on. 2 years ago it wasn't even clear that HRC would run, let alone that her emails would become such a large and specifically scrutinized aspect of the campaign. Yes, it would've been better if Combetta h…

Bias disclaimer: I'm voting third party, so a pox on all of their houses.

I can't help but fret, however, over how lame Congress has become in the last few decades. Congress is a separate but equal part of the government. In fact, if push came to shove, they're the ones who are supposed to have all the power. Congress can pick and fire a president under extreme circumstances. The president can't do the same with Congress.

But whether it's this fishing expedition or oversight of the intelligence community, Congress is missing in action and/or impotent. They serve subpoenas. Sometimes the people show up, sometimes they don't. They request evidence. Sometimes they get it, sometimes not. Sometime it takes years and they only get a little bit. Nothing happens.

If the Congress is conducting an investigation, even the idiotic political investigations they seem so good at, this is the government that is asking questions. People should be going to jail and/or disbarred for the types of shenanigans that regularly go on. But nope. It seems all too easy to say, well, it's just Congress, you know? Nobody takes any of that stuff seriously, right?

In the 1970s the Church Committee took apart the national intelligence apparatus and tried to fix a lot of problems. I don't see this Congress or any future ones being able to investigate and improve their own parking garage, much less anything of any national significance.

If your Congressperson is doing silly political stuff? Fire them and elect somebody else. But don't make the institution itself a politically powerless charade of a legislative body. That destroys a much-needed error-correcting mechanism.

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

#390

Post by ethanbond »

mcphage wrote: post #43
School-Cotton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Uhh Bush is one of the least popular presidents ever, for a wide swath of reasons. It's not like he was some god above public opinion.
Post reply on HN