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

431–440 of 486 posts

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

#431

Post by patrickg_zill »

koube wrote: post #384
patrickg_zill wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

Those are great talking points.

Unfortunately, every single person that I know, that has a security clearance, can easily punch holes in almost all your points.

My views are based on what I have read and what I have been told by people with, collectively, 100+ years of security clearance holding.

* The Clinton private email server was not cleared for handling classified info. Yet classified information went through it as we now know.

* Some things were marked classified and some were not. This has no bearing on anything however. The onus is on the person who has the clearance to treat and handle all classified information properly regardless of whether it is marked properly or not.

* Clinton's intent: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

i.e. take classified info, put into email form and strip the classified markings from it, then send to me.

Source: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605

I'll stop there. Basically your points are garbage.

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

#432

Post by SerLava »

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/…

Yeah and when a lot of people vote third party, it pulls a lot of politicians toward the views held by the unelected third party.

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

#433

Post by devopsproject »

rezashirazian wrote: post #101
jimmywanger wrote: post #26

The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns. Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time. The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tri…

On top of all of these what I found fascinating is the amount of blind luck bestowed upon Trump. The guy has swallowed a horseshoe.

> blind luck

He has been successful in business and is now at the helm of one of the most powerful political parties in the known universe. No one has that kind of "luck". There is something more there.

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

#434

Post by devopsproject »

peu4000 wrote: post #424
adamrezich wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If a man said that he deserved a job over a woman on the basis of gender, it would be sexist (and wrong). The reverse is also true.

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

#435

Post by stonetear »

mozumder wrote: post #373
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…

It's fine that she deleted her personal emails. Everyone does that. No one really cares about this issue except the House Republicans. They really are trying their hardest to figure out something here, but are obviously coming up empty. It just makes them look foolish.

I'm not a Republican and I care about this issue deeply.

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

#436

Post by dogma1138 »

Retric wrote: post #430
dogma1138 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Overall this sort of redaction smells like legal advice.

You define the record as the body of the message and archive messages without the headers, or at least without the sender and recipient headers in them. This might even be a valid interpretation of the US records act.

When asked why you can say this was the archiving policy and you stored the messages as a document and the headers were irrelevant since they did not hold any information.

When asked about who sent or received a specific email that has been redacted you can 'honestly' claim "I do not recall".

Overall this is pretty much exactly the borderline illegal narrative that a good legal counselor would provide in this case.

Of Course that advice was granted based on the premise that there would not be a trail that would make this look premeditated and suspicious.

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

#437

Post by snowwrestler »

mkohlmyr wrote: post #425
snowwrestler wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If I came on here and said that Google should keep a copy of every email ever written or received in Gmail, just in case the police wanted to look at it later, how many folks here would think that is a good privacy policy? I'd guess not many. But that is what you're suggesting Clinton should have done with her personal email.

If a piece of information is stored so that it can be given to someone else later, that's not really very private. Privacy means the right to keep things away from others, and it includes the right to delete things.

Now maybe you want to argue that certain public officials should not permitted to have privacy while they are in office. That's fine, make that argument, but it's not the state of things now, legally or culturally.

And consider that there might be unintended consequences. It might deter some great people from considering public service. And it might put a hole in the legal concept of privacy that others will try to widen later.

I would argue that if we're going to be serious about legally protecting privacy, we need to be consistent. "Protect privacy, except for politicians I don't like" is not a particularly strong legal framework.

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

#438

Post by heurist »

School-Cotton wrote: post #169
phil248 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many more decades of witch hunts and investigations before we find some damn fire?

What do you mean? We found it. This is fire.

It's an old unverified post on reddit being reviewed by republicans in the House of Representatives. Has everyone gone mad? We are literally paying our representatives to waste time reading Reddit based on a tenuous connection and some miniscule hope that it some how someday leads to FINALLY exposing the CORRUPT Hillary, or even better, hurting her chances of winning the presidency. Even if this were illegal, everything could be done with the best intentions and primarily legal concordance just like the email scandal, and STILL House Republicans would investigate it as if it were a war crime. Taxpayer money is being wasted on this bullshit, and yet these dipwads keep being reelected. THAT is the fire.

In this period of great economic uncertainty, a billionaire real estate tycoon and media mogul with no political experience, inflammatory rhetoric, and awful, authoritarian policy proposals is a serious contender for the most powerful office in the world, I'd say we have bigger problems to worry about tHan anything Hillary may have done. Our economy, livelihood, and potentially our freedom is at stake under this threat. Trump is a true menace to society and we are treating any little flaw shown by Hillary as villainy in the highest order. It's baffling, and terrifying.

In short, I'd take Crooked Hillary over Tyrant Trump any day.

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

#439

Post by the_trapper »

ben174 wrote: post #146
School-Cotton wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Literally what point are you making? Dude, do you think this is a football game? That scoring a point against your opponent negates points scored against you? I suspect a big chunk of the people complaining about this would have complained even harder when Bush did it (if what you say is true), if they had been old enough to be aware what was going on, and had social media like we do now. So, what is your…

On the football game analogy: yes, there are two teams. One of these teams will win. Both teams suck but at the end of the day, most people will want to vote for the person who made the most points. It's actually exactly what it is.

Fun fact, Gary Johnson will be on every state's ballot this year.

Therefore, no there are NOT just two teams. Voting for the lesser evil is so much of what is wrong with the direction of this country today.

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

#440

Post by koube »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #431
koube wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

Those are great talking points. Unfortunately, every single person that I know, that has a security clearance, can easily punch holes in almost all your points. My views are based on what I have read and what I have been told by people with, collectively, 100+ years of security clearance holding. * The Clinton private email server was not cleared for handling classified info. Yet classified information went through i…

You and your friends with your 100+ years of security clearance holding are free to have an opinion on Clinton's handling of her private email server.

What you cannot reasonably do, is take the legal opinion of the Director of the FBI, that the Clinton case is different from the Petraeus case, and disagree based on the fact that you have 100+ years of security clearance holding.

I have explained to you key points in James Comey's legal opinion that the Petraeus situation is not applicable to Clinton. I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than I in some area or another, however that doesn't change the fact that the legal position of the FBI has already decided. You can disagree if you want, in the same way people from the internet disagree that climate change exists. I am not interested your vague insinuations.

Post reply on HN