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

#411

Post by foldr » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:23 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #377

int_19h wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clinton may be corrupt and sleazy, but the country can survive 4 or even 8 years of that - it did many times before. Whereas 4 years of a sociopath with megalomania, a definitive authoritarian streak, and a massive populist backing, I'm not so sure about. Let me put it this way. As a third party supporter, your strategy, presumably, is to slowly accrue vote until your candidate of choice (or really, anyone who's will…

Interesting, because I feel exactly the opposite. Corruption is the #1 thing that destroys countries. Nothing else comes close. A "sociopath with megalomania" on the other hand can't really do much to hurt the country (no one would let him). And I don't see how "a definitive authoritarian streak, and a massive populist backing" are a problem. i.e. secret damage to a country is much worse than open damage.

>And I don't see how "a definitive authoritarian streak, and a massive populist backing" are a problem.

I can see how someone might have said that before the 20th century happened.

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

#412

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

newman314 wrote: post #251

Retric wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on nobody criticizing the several prior people in that same position that did the exact same thing. Sure, if it was just one or two that's one thing, but A email is public in the first place and B when your the fifth person in a row to do something you generally assume that's just how it's done.

Does not make it right (for anyone). Equal rules should apply.

[deleted]

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

#413

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:59 PM UTC

saboot wrote: post #302

adamrezich wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? What does it prove? Why does shining the spotlight on self-proclaimed Internet racists actually accomplish? Especially seeing as how much of the racism seems to mostly be in service of attention-seeking? What do you get out of proving that self-proclaimed racists [do x], as a small subset of people who [do x]?

Not self proclaimed internet racists, we're talking about white nationalists and race segregationists like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor discussing Pepe as a way to "speak truth to power".

[deleted]

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

#414

Post by sanderjd » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 2:00 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #408

akhilcacharya wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

...the fringes... Who is this? How can I tell who of my neighbors is in this group? Having made that determination, how should I treat those neighbors?

This seems akin to feigned disbelief - you know the answers to these questions but are pretending not to. I'll bite anyway!

> Who is this? How can I tell who of my neighbors is in this group?

People who espouse beliefs far away from the median belief in the society. You can tell by taking to them about their beliefs, or often in my experience by having them talk at you about them or by looking at bumper stickers and flags they display, and then comparing the beliefs they espouse to your intuition of what the median belief is. Of course everyone's intuition of that is based on the people they themselves know, so "the fringe" ends up defined differently for different people. This can be controlled a bit by reading or being exposed to summaries of reports of society-wide studies, like polls and surveys. This is what the news should help with, but unfortunately people tend to choose news from inside the same bubble as all the people they know, so that doesn't work that well either.

> Having made that determination, how should I treat those neighbors?

With the same kindness you treat everyone else, but without having to agree (or pretend to agree) with our have any respect for their views. You "hate the sin, not the sinner".

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

#415

Post by mozumder » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 2:06 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #381

mozumder wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> How would that help? She deleted them.

Sucks for them, then. Perhaps the House Republicans should have been quicker on their feet, instead of clowning around?

The public is in support of Clinton, and want House Republican members impeached and jailed.

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

#416

Post by yolesaber » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 2:11 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #318

yolesaber wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You" clearly haven't even read or seen the speech and are talking completely out of your ass. It was one of his opening talking points in his presidential announcement in New York City to his cronies - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06... It's pretty straightforward xenophobic, hyper jingoist nationalist rhetoric. You = us good Americans. They = the Other. He uses the car industry for Japa…

I saw it, way back when he spoke. "They're not sending you" never occurred to me as "you, Americans". That'd uh, make no sense: Mexico is not a significant source of Americans immigrating to America. At any rate, it's still besides the point. He's accurate in saying that people coming in illegally aren't "the best". If you're a top professional you're not going to risk illegal immigration anywhere, generally speaking…

> "They're not sending you" never occurred to me as "you, Americans". That'd uh, make no sense: Mexico is not a significant source of Americans immigrating to America.

He's talking to a roomful of Americans mentioning how America (referred to as us, you) is being beaten by other countries (they). It's pretty obvious. Just because it doesn't make any sense doesn't negate what Trump was implying - it's not like he's known for sound logical reasoning or even being able to approximate a grain of truth. If you seriously think he was referring to "legal Mexicans" in that speech (again, to a roomful of his white cronies in Midtown NYC) then I got a brooklyn bridge to sell you.

>At any rate, it's still besides the point. He's accurate in saying that people coming in illegally aren't "the best".

Is he accurate in saying that Mexicans only care about "beating" us at the border and that they are mostly rapists with only some, he "assumes", are good people? Come on.

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

#417

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

001sky wrote: post #371

snowwrestler wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the thread says that, but they are wrong. No lawyer in the world thinks that Microsoft Exchange is some sort of legal chain of custody or inviolable vault of perfect information. The reason Exchange does not have the functionality to redact email address is that people who need to redact information usually prefer to do it by hand, so it would be a waste of Microsoft's time to build a utility to do it. But to thi…

Notwithstanding your good points about it not being fool-proof, it is an important point that your email software doesn't essentially promote or enable corruption of the meta data in the way you describe. As a business person, nobody would [buy/use] exchange if it was not reasonably secure from an audit trail perspective. The intergrity of the communications is required for many business's who have record retention p…

The combo of Active Directory + Exchange gives system administrators a lot of power to use permissions to limit who can alter or destroy critical data. But obviously someone has to be the master admin, and that person's power can't be limited by software.

Technological audit trails are trustworthy only to the extent that the admins running them are trusted.

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

#418

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #393

snowwrestler wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 H…

>But not personal emails. That's true. >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. No, the sense of impropriety was fed by Hillary Clinton herself when she turned over a tiny fraction of emails relating to official business and then destroyed the rest so nobody could ever retrie…

Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was only required to turn over official business emails. And was legally permitted to do what she wanted with her personal emails, including delete them.

It is nonsensical to say that following the law implies impropriety.

On top of this, the FBI recovered and reviewed many of the emails that she deleted, and did not find anything damning. They declined to recommend a prosecution.

Setting aside the politics of "it's Hillary Clinton and she's running for president," there is no evidence that she tried to break the law, or succeeded in doing so.

The evidence shows that she wanted some privacy, and even Hillary Clinton is entitled to that under the law.

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

#419

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #366

snowwrestler wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So says you, but thankfully the law holds itself to a higher standard. Specifically, the law requires evidence of criminal activity to begin a criminal prosecution.

Your standard is that any time someone claims something, we can all act like the opposite of that claim is true, even if there is no actual evidence. By that standard, everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Again, thankfully, the law does not work that way.

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

#420

Post by mi100hael » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:15 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #272

mi100hael wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's not to like about "What's Aleppo?" Gary and his RINO running mate?

That Aleppo thing is a total joke. If our foreign policy wasn't a complete joke, there would be no need for the President to know anything about Aleppo. As it is, it's still questionable if there's any reason for him/her to do so. Keep in mind, Johnson is running for President, not Chief Cartographer.

The civil war in Syria has been one of the most critical situations in US foreign policy for several years now. It has consequences for the stability of the region and the rise or fall of IS, it has consequences for the security of Israel, a key ally, and it has consequences for how our modern relationship with Russia continues to develop.

You can call our foreign policy a joke, but it's inexcusable for someone running for the most powerful office in the world to not have even a cursory knowledge of it.