471–480 of 486 posts
The US News and World Report article is also a nice primer on this issue. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta... I have not seen this reported on by any major US news media. (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS) Other than The Hill, US News, various right-wing sources, and VICE I don't see anyone writing about this. It reminds me of the first hour or two after Hillary's episode at the 9/…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I only know about what I see of that guy, plus a knowledge of human nature. Just an observation. Been true since grade school, held true all my life. Why would it change now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thread dropped because users flagged it. The 254/312 isn't what I'm seeing and ought to be impossible given how the software works. Can you reproduce it?
The user is using a popular HN plugin which lists "254" as the number of comments, not number of points. See the second photo for another place the "254" comments is displayed. The user is likely misunderstanding how the plugin works.
But I saw the sudden drop from top 4 to below the fold within minutes. Way too fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only know about what I see of that guy, plus a knowledge of human nature. Just an observation. Been true since grade school, held true all my life. Why would it change now?
You don't know anything about the majority of the people you are insulting. It's childish to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hillary is far, far more deserving of that label than Trump. To campaign and donate millions of dollars on her behalf requires ignorance, a seriously twisted moral compass, or some financial and political incentives that you don't want to talk about.
She's spent her life struggling to help children and single parents. Donations fund her charity that has helped millions worldwide. To twist that into something bad is just more of the political smokescreen that plagues any woman in public office.
She was linked to Whitewater, was that because she was a woman?
She constantly defended Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton....
She moved to New York just so she could run for senator.
She and Bill also spent 3 million dollars on her daughter's wedding. Where did she come up with that money, considering that a President's salary is in the mid six figures?
Oh that's right, she (and Bill) get quarter million dollar speaking fees at Goldman Sachs.
What part of all that would not be reprehensible if she were a man, and if she were a man, wouldn't this all be dug up and thrown into his/her face if you were running for president?
How is pointing out moral turpitude a "political smokescreen that plagues every woman in public office"?
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.
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-p…
As it turns out, delegitimizing and spreading conspiracy theories about a wildly popular president in a community does not make people in a community fans of you.
Most analysts don't think the outreach was targeted at black voters at all, but rather white moderates, who are more persuadable and numerous in number.
0: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12587672/donald-trump-s-black-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 no…
I do NOT demand she hand over personal email! No. Only that she make it possible for a 3rd party to sort her emails into private/public.
She has the right to delete personal email - but only if it's actually personal, and I don't trust her to be the one to decide that.
She brought this on herself by mixing them in the first place. Want to maintain your privacy when you know you job requires publicity? Keep your public and private lives separate. She chose not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 no…
I don't even need to argue that certain public officials should not be permitted to have privacy while in office. She has a right to privacy. I am not arguing she doesn't.
I am arguing she made a series of poor choices that led to a situation where the only way she can live up to the standards we should expect from a public official (a verifiable paper trail for business pertaining to office) is by keeping a record of her private communications as well.
This is why you don't use your private email address for official business. If you want privacy while in office you don't use your private email server for official business. You aren't supposed to anyway. It's very simple and very reasonable.