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

421–430 of 486 posts

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

#421

Post by jessaustin »

sanderjd wrote: post #414
jessaustin wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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…

Thanks for making the effort, but this definition is problematic in several respects. First of all, Trump is only a bit behind Clinton in the polls now, so either OP is wrong about Trump's supporters being those, as you put it, "far away from the median" (we typically call this "long tail") or the variance is much higher than any rational observer could believe. 538 gives Trump an 88.5% chance of winning the state where I live. The median voter here is a Trumpet.

Second, the proposed method of making this identification is entirely subjective. I'm planning to vote either Green or Libertarian this election, because I oppose war, prohibition, and other travesties of the status quo. On the topics of most concern to me, I literally can't tell the difference between Clinton supporters and Trump supporters. How can I determine whose "sins" I should "hate"? Perhaps I should hate my own sins, even though they couldn't possibly be of support to Trump? This is quite disturbing to me, and the principle of charity had previously ruled out this reading of OP.

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".

Incidentally, if any particular campaign takes this particular idiotic rhetorical stance, and then loses, and then wonders why? They'll be able to blame this particular idiotic rhetorical stance. In order to convince people of anything, one must speak with fluency in the people's terms. Your use of "sin" here would not be considered idiomatic by any Trump supporter I know.

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

#422

Post by monocasa »

comex wrote: post #252
monocasa wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but false Any citation for that?

I have edited my post to elaborate. [additional text so the dupe checker doesn't hide this]

It doesn't cost $6M to run a couple twitter feeds for a few months. https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00578997

And she didn't say that Correct the Record doesn't have covert accounts, she said the Barrier Breakers accounts are always marked.

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

#423

Post by forgottenpass »

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.

Funny how nobody seemed to think so until now.

I did. This was just one of many mini-scandals under Bush that never really seemed to boil over.

I thought it was a problem then, still think it's a problem now, but now know why nobody held him to the fire: they were doing that shit too.

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

#424

Post by peu4000 »

adamrezich wrote: post #376
TillE wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the most experienced presidential candidate of the last couple of decades George H. W. Bush was a two term vice president, director of the CIA, etc. I've been following this election pretty closely for more than a year, and I seriously couldn't tell you what Clinton's positive message is besides "I'm experienced". Nobody cares. Americans don't elect technocratic planks of wood. This is the worst, most inept preside…

It's really interesting to hear you say that, actually, because from my perspective, she had two positive messages: - "I'm experienced" - "I'm a woman, and it's high time a woman became President" It's interesting that her campaign has finally stopped beating us over the head with the latter, at least; it was insultingly sexist.

It's insultingly sexist to suggest that 51% of the population should finally have representation in the highest office in America?

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

#425

Post by mkohlmyr »

snowwrestler wrote: post #407
ars wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ev…

Deleting personal emails is common and legal, even for the Secretary of State. You're essentially arguing that a person who desires privacy is therefore suspicious. I would hope that folks here on HN recognize that's a bullshit argument.

Not quite.

His argument is that she had the option to achieve privacy (by complying with the request and simply keeping her private emails). Instead they decided to not let anyone ever have the possibility to verify if she complied.

She chose to achieve privacy by making any future investigation impossible.

Is it legal? I guess, assuming she told the truth (and made no mistakes) about which emails were relevant. But personally I would like to hold people in office to a higher transparency and ethics standard than "strictly legal".

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

#426

Post by MichaelGG »

bcg1 wrote: post #365
morgante wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The person that said the quote about which financial people he wants has Jewish grandkids. I hardly think that is "Nazi level" and I don't mind having my comment up.

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

#427

Post by oh_sigh »

snowwrestler wrote: post #407
ars wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ev…

Deleting personal emails is common and legal, even for the Secretary of State. You're essentially arguing that a person who desires privacy is therefore suspicious. I would hope that folks here on HN recognize that's a bullshit argument.

We all agree with that. OP was saying that she deleted more than just personal emails - she deleted work emails as well.

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

#428

Post by oh_sigh »

Retric wrote: post #167
School-Cotton wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point I'm making is that I don't think you, or anybody else actually cares about the emails Based on what evidence? > they care it's something they can criticize Clinton for. I'm no fan of Trump either. I wish Clinton were a good candidate so she would wipe the floor with him. > So of course nobody complained about it with Bush, because nobody cares about them. I was 12 years old when Bush was elected. That's w…

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.

Is there as much evidence available with bush as there is with HRC?

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

#429

Post by mjcl »

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…

Exchange by itself is absolutely not secure from an audit trail perspective[1]. I've specifically had this come up where an employee edited an e-mail to try and CYA.

Even if you are using journalling, an administrator can open the journal mailbox and edit messages. If you want/need a reasonably secure audit trail, you need a 3rd party product in addition to Exchange.

[1] https://www.msoutlook.info/question/edit-message-and-subject

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

#430

Post by Retric »

dogma1138 wrote: post #292
Retric wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 7 months, prior to the first subpoena. This is a question for redacting information, which is fairly common when doing releases to congress etc.

Do you really think that they didn't knew a subpoena was coming? Infact I would bet that they've consulted with a lawyer and this "redaction" was deemed as "shady but not criminal". Hilary might be "dumb" (as far as IT goes) but she ain't stupid.

If they thought it was going to cause a mess they likely would not have done it in the first place. If the opposition can make something look bad and you don't gain anything from it then what's the point.
Post reply on HN