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

261–270 of 319 posts

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

#261

Post by cmdrfred »

heurist wrote: post #246
vectorpush wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but I think she needs to be indicted if the e-mails prove her to be culpable. Ideally she will win the election, and if the e-mails prove damning she will be indicted and hopefully impeached and forced to resign, leaving Tim Kaine to finish off her term, which IMO would be the best case scenario for the country.

That's pretty presumptive. The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Given that she's been running for president the last decade or two and republicans will pounce on her over any little misstep, do you really think she'd intentionally do something that could ruin her chances of winning or staying president? Remember that intention is important in law...

>The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing.

Incorrect, they found no one who was "willing to prosecute"

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

#262

Post by Armisael16 »

cmdrfred wrote: post #251
Armisael16 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your gut's wrong on this one: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-jus... Most Clinton voters are voting for her, not against Trump.

A single phone poll of "a random national sample of 874 likely voters" (1 in every 350 thousand) does not a fact make in a nation of 300 million people. Sample size is just too small. Such a study would have to be repeated with a larger sample.

56% ± 3.3% at 95% confidence isn't good enough for you?

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

#263

Post by mywittyname »

cmsimike wrote: post #243
tdb7893 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think most people would be jailed for it. There's no evidence of it being malicious so as my dad (who was in the military) put it, "if the government jailed people for doing things that were stupid there would be no one left".

I disagree completely with this. I _want_ to believe I live in a country where not only laws are applied but common sense too. Do I believe Hillary acted with malicious intent? I don't. I do believe she broke the law. The reality I believe in is that if it were me somehow in this situation, there would be no common-sense applied, just the letter of the law. No judge would look at my past and see someone making a mist…

> Do I believe Hillary acted with malicious intent? I don't.

She just wanted email on her Blackberry so she could conduct business while traveling.

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

#264

Post by cmdrfred »

Armisael16 wrote: post #262
cmdrfred wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single phone poll of "a random national sample of 874 likely voters" (1 in every 350 thousand) does not a fact make in a nation of 300 million people. Sample size is just too small. Such a study would have to be repeated with a larger sample.

56% ± 3.3% at 95% confidence isn't good enough for you?

They are pulling the confidence level out of their asses. The Clinton campaign has been playing with the polling since the start of this campaign.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551

If this is real, it can be duplicated.

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

#265

Post by dragonwriter »

downandout wrote: post #254
xenadu02 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which legal experts? The relevant laws are clear as to what happens. It is the CIO responsible for the individual department who is required to regulate the use of IT resources. It would have been their responsibility to tell Clinton specifically that she wasn't allowed to use the server then cite her if she continued. That didn't happen so she's completely in the clear. The law even allows the CIO leeway to allow th…

Ok, so I'll put aside for a moment the fact that she lied directly to the FBI when the former Secretary of State told them that she didn't know that "C" meant classified, along with the myriad criminal pay-to-play issues that the FBI has simply ignored, both of which are slam-dunk federal felony cases. The law provides for criminal charges when someone uses gross negligence in the mishandling of classified materials…

(C), as a portion marker in a classified document (which it would properly only occur in if the document itself was at least as highly classified, with banners marking the classification in full words) means "confidential", not "classified". In email, the banner text is placed at the top and bottom of the body (the subject line of a classified email is portion marked to indicate the classification status -- including (U) for unclassified if that applies -- of the subject line itself.) [0] Any place that portion markers are properly used, the whole containing document is clearly marked as classified with a specific level, and the whole content -- other than parts portion-marked as unclassified -- is classified.

It's kind of funny how the majority of the people who mock Clinton over this get it wrong themselves.

And also omit the context, which was a (C) used in an email which had neither a portion marker in the header (as all classified emails should) nor classification banners. In that context, I think mlet's actually pretty reasonable to have no idea that a parenthetical (C) on a paragraph was intended as a portion marker of classification level.

[0] http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Inform...

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

#266

Post by drewrv »

thecrow1213 wrote: post #90

Oh my god everyone here is splitting hairs like the rest of the goddamn internet. The FBI is looking at more Clinton emails. That sounds shady and bad for Clinton no matter how you swing it.

She could hire someone to walk her dog and 40% of the country would consider it scandalous and criminal.

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

#267

Post by mywittyname »

Kenji wrote: post #19
mzw_mzw wrote: post #7

That was a very strange article with all the near-wishful "igniting speculation about a Clinton defeat" stuff. The whole emails issue has been inside baseball, politics-wise. Insiders and pundits love yelling about it but average voters either don't care (the vast majority) or have already assumed she's guilty/not guilty and priced that into their vote. Reopening the investigation is not going to change the election…

The e-mails should have put her in prison, and they would have put anyone else in the same situation in prison. But you're right, with her being her, they're a complete nonissue. They simply don't matter at all.

A similar situation happened under the Bush administration and no one was jailed for it. Of course they were smart enough to use private email servers for both senders and receivers, and they deleted an estimated 22 million the emails.

It was also much more widespread, with 88 staffers having accounts on this server. Of course, there's no evidence that classified information was discussed, since they deleted the evidence. But it's hard to believe Karl Rove sent 150k emails without a single bit of classified information in them.

So there's precedent for think kind of thing being swept under the rug.

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

#268

Post by Armisael16 »

cmdrfred wrote: post #264
Armisael16 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

56% ± 3.3% at 95% confidence isn't good enough for you?

They are pulling the confidence level out of their asses. The Clinton campaign has been playing with the polling since the start of this campaign. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551 If this is real, it can be duplicated.

...that confidence level isn't from the campaign. That's just how confidence is calculated. The z score for 95% confidence is 1.96, so the range is:

1.96sqrt(0.56*(1-0.56)/871) ~ 3.3%

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

#269

Post by [deleted] »

cmdrfred wrote: post #264
Armisael16 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

56% ± 3.3% at 95% confidence isn't good enough for you?

They are pulling the confidence level out of their asses. The Clinton campaign has been playing with the polling since the start of this campaign. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551 If this is real, it can be duplicated.

[deleted]

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

#270

Post by downandout »

dragonwriter wrote: post #265
downandout wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so I'll put aside for a moment the fact that she lied directly to the FBI when the former Secretary of State told them that she didn't know that "C" meant classified, along with the myriad criminal pay-to-play issues that the FBI has simply ignored, both of which are slam-dunk federal felony cases. The law provides for criminal charges when someone uses gross negligence in the mishandling of classified materials…

(C), as a portion marker in a classified document (which it would properly only occur in if the document itself was at least as highly classified, with banners marking the classification in full words) means "confidential", not "classified". In email, the banner text is placed at the top and bottom of the body (the subject line of a classified email is portion marked to indicate the classification status -- including…

I apparently used the wrong word in my comment (Clasified vs Confidential), but regardless, she claimed that she didn't know what it meant. I'm not the former Secretary of State, so my gaff is understandable. Hillary Clinton, however, is the former Secretary of State, and undoubtedly received extensive training in these matters. That means she either lied or has some kind of mental defect that made her unable to remember some of the most critical training that she received during her tenure. Either of those are disqualifiers for the Presidency in my opinion.
Post reply on HN