Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 319 posts

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#211

Post by Delmania »

swissoak wrote: post #194
Delmania wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how I know you've never listened to anything Trump has said on the campaign trail. In fact, just yesterday, he said the nation should cancel the election and name him the winner: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/donald-trump-cancel-e... .

He was obviously not serious in a literal sense of his words. He was making a point. It'd be like being a football coach shit talking before a game - "the other team should give up, they don't stand a chance". He doesn't literally mean they should give up. This is so blindly obvious to me and anyone else who's capable of a rational thought. I cannot believe you are seriously try to suggest he meant that in the sense…

Wait, should I bring the point at which he said, during a national TV debate, that he would keep us in suspense about his decision to accept the outcome of the election? Then later state he would only accept it if he won? Maybe we should discuss the form on his website that says, “stop crooked Hillary from rigging this election.”?

How about his claims of voter fraud despite the fact that no evidence has been found?

>This is so blindly obvious to me and anyone else who's capable of a rational thought.

Ad hominen attack, but I suspect you support Trump.

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#212

Post by swissoak »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #208
swissoak wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people respons…

> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. This is not actually true. While he is forced to only use Airforce One when flying he is required by law to reimburse all costs related to campaigning for anyone . Typically though the president never pays for this and, instead, the candidate they are campaigning for foots the bill. Every single…

My point is that it is morally void, one candidate is doing it, the other isn't. That it's been done historically has absolutely zero relevance as to whether it is a moral thing to do (see literally any example of civil rights laws progressing over the past 300 years).

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#213

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

swissoak wrote: post #184
MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Sanders was basically an independent running as a Dem. Even though I would have preferred him, it's ridiculous to expect the party not to be preferential towards the inside candidate who has decades of connections. Also primaries are not subject to the same level of protections or expectations of institutional impartialit…

>"Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Go look at the reason he gives for not recommending prosecution. It has nothing to do with whether what she did was illegal. Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. My comments are targeted at people reading this who m…

> Go look at the reason.

Okay.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."[1]

Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things".

> Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced.

Okay! Lets see, sources in the first two pages of google results for "clinton voting machines": zerohedge, usapoliticstoday, thepoliticalinsider, conservativedailypost, breitbart, inforwars, wnd, libertywritersnews, quora (lol), snopes (for obvious reasons), proudcons, theconomiccollapseblog, counterpunch, thecommonsenseshow, thegatewaypundit, ajc. Not that the "MSM" is completely unbiased, but openly partisan publications don't really constitute news sources to my mind. If there were really such blatant attempts at election rigging going on, I have faith that an impartial journalist with integrity would be looking into it and/or an adjacent party would have sufficient incentive to blow the whistle. It would be huge news.

> My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.

Don't think you'll find too many of those on HN, but good luck fighting the good fight.

[1]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#214

Post by brandon272 »

freehunter wrote: post #199
danenania wrote: post #116

Ok, so Hillary Clinton was and continues to be a corrupt, deceitful, and self-interested operator. She's doubtlessly done all kinds of both borderline and outright illegal things throughout her career. No big surprise here. If elected, she will continue to work the highly imperfect system we've got in lots of shady and questionable ways. But please, let's get real. For all her numerous faults, her opponent represents…

Nothing Trump has said or done in any way improves the suitability of Clinton for president. If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee?

I think people severely overestimate how a Trump presidency would play out in terms of "shocking" the system. And in the meantime, a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees)

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#215

Post by [deleted] »

Delmania wrote: post #207
luxuryballs wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason he said it was 'rigged' is because of the overwhelming bias and frankly twilight-zone behavior of the media who are clearly donating to Clinton and wanting to maintain whatever special privileges they have under Obama. We have a real problem with the press in this country... great example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVsnMuaFjhE

Yes, I've seen that interview, where Gingrinch accused Kelley of being fascinated with sex and then attempted to use Bill Clinton's indiscretions as some sort of way to discredit Hillary. This is after he talked to his exwife about divorce while she was recovering from cancer and then later has an affair. At that point, it was clear the interview served no useful purpose. Additionally, all major media publications ha…

[deleted]

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#216

Post by swissoak »

Delmania wrote: post #211
swissoak wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was obviously not serious in a literal sense of his words. He was making a point. It'd be like being a football coach shit talking before a game - "the other team should give up, they don't stand a chance". He doesn't literally mean they should give up. This is so blindly obvious to me and anyone else who's capable of a rational thought. I cannot believe you are seriously try to suggest he meant that in the sense…

Wait, should I bring the point at which he said, during a national TV debate, that he would keep us in suspense about his decision to accept the outcome of the election? Then later state he would only accept it if he won? Maybe we should discuss the form on his website that says, “stop crooked Hillary from rigging this election.”? How about his claims of voter fraud despite the fact that no evidence has been found? >…

For the record, I don't support Trump. I think it's highly likely he has sexually assaulted women in the past, I think he's tremendously unqualified to be president, his plan to lower corporate income tax is complete bullshit, and even if he hasn't explicitly said anything racist (I'm not informed enough to say either way) I think it's awful that he's cultivating racists around him unapologetically.

Despite all this, I am fucking sick and tired at the outright lies, slander, and disingenuous arguments against Trump. There is plenty to attack him on without all the bullshit. And I'm sick of the Hillary reality distortion that is, from what I can tell, the absolute epitome of everything wrong with politics today.

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#217

Post by poliwut »

dmode wrote: post #124
skeptic2718 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter if it had classified information or not when a high ranking state official is using a personal private email server to bypass the official one?

Using a private email server was the norm at state department. Collin Powell used a private server and explained the benefits of it to Hillary Clinton. The only reason this bubbled up top was due to the Bengazhi situation. Otherwise, there would not even be an investigation on this.

To provide some clarity about Powell:

1. He used a personal, private email address--note a personal, private email server.

2. This was the norm to use a private address, yes. However, policies changed after Powell left and no longer permitted this kind of behavior.

3. Clinton and her staff blatantly ignored these policies and took it a step further by using her own personal, private email server.

4. Powell only used the email address to handle non-classified material. Clinton handled classified material on her email server.

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#218

Post by downandout »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #41

As much as I would like this to be true, I think that's a pretty biased interpretation of his letter. My reading would be this: "We found some new emails. They're relevant, but we don't know if they're important. We're looking into it." What I find interesting is the timing of this letter and, possibly, the fact that he wrote it at all . But we can't judge the significance of those without knowing if this is standard…

So on the timing....there's an interesting backstory here. James Comey was a lifelong Republican until this year [1]. He appears to be a Republican in the "never Trump" camp. Prior to the public disclosure of Comey's recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted, Loretta Lynch publicly stated that she would try to appear impartial by going with whatever the FBI recommended. This effectively put Comey - a "never Trump" man - in the position of appointing the next President of the United States. If he had elected to recommend prosecution, Trump was the guaranteed winner. If he didn't, most realized that Clinton would beat Trump.

Perhaps this "reopening" is more the result of an attack of conscience than of the significance of any new information. It's possible that this is a halfhearted attempt to do what many legal experts considered to be the right thing in the first place.

[1] http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/...

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#219

Post by swissoak »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #213
swissoak wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Go look at the reason he gives for not recommending prosecution. It has nothing to do with whether what she did was illegal. Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. My comments are targeted at people reading this who m…

> Go look at the reason. Okay. "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also…

>Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things".

One does not need to intend to do something for it to be highly illegal. There is an absolute boat load of cases where people did 1/10th of what Hillary did, without any proven intent, and went to prison for it. Thousands of people are prosecuted every day by our criminal justice system without any intent.

And in the same quote: "potential violations". He completely dodged having to explicitly say that it was illegal, which anyone with a security clearance can plainly tell you. The only reason he didn't explicitly say she didn't break the law was because it would be a lie that he even couldn't pull off.

It is so blindingly obvious that this is a load of horse shit. He is being vague, misleading, and deliberately obtuse.

Re: FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

#220

Post by whybroke »

dsp1234 wrote: post #60
sp332 wrote: post #33

Here is the actual letter. Note the FBI does not say they are "re-opening" anything. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig

The letter states "referred to the fact that the FBI had completed it's investigation". Then the letter states "I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow.... whether they contain classified information". In plain English, the case was closed, but now there is new evidence and we're investigating it. Sounds like 're-opening' to me.

>Sounds like 're-opening' to me.

Why are we now shoehorning the real world in to TV speak?

Post reply on HN