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

271–280 of 319 posts

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

#271

Post by Natsu »

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…

Her staff discuss worries over highly classified pictures of North Korea in the Podesta emails related to this scandal, so no matter what markings were used, she showed very poor judgement.

There's also a point there that intentional negligence is a contradiction in terms. If something is intentional, it's not negligent. If it's negligent, it can't be intentional.

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

#272

Post by dragonwriter »

downandout wrote: post #270
dragonwriter wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 reme…

No, she said she didn't know what it was intended to mean in the email in question, which had neither classification banners nor a portion marker on the subject line.

It's perfectly reasonable to not know that a lone parenthetical letter at the start of a paragraph in an email that is not itself marked as classified is intended as a classification portion marker. Because parenthetical letters have many uses in general written communication, and there special use as portion markers is specific to documents that are classified as a whole, which there are standard ways of marking.

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

#273

Post by gragas »

drewrv wrote: post #266
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.

You're dramatically downplaying the things HRC has been implicated in. It's almost as if you've already made up your mind that she's not guilty of anything.

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

#274

Post by gragas »

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...

These are independent events. Investigating for a year, handing out a bunch of immunity agreements and finding yourself out of people to prosecute says nothing about the new evidence at hand.

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

#275

Post by gragas »

Armisael16 wrote: post #172
cmdrfred wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems few people are actually voting for Clinton, but rather voting against Trump. What is something like this leaves such a bad taste in their mouth that they decide to not vote at all?

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.

FiveThirtyEight is extremely biased.

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

#276

Post by makomk »

pfraze wrote: post #203
luxuryballs wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say he would contest a loss, he said he wouldn't make a decision until the election actually took place. How anyone expects someone to predict the future is beyond me and the logic of the question shows that it was totally a trap so they could write sensational news headlines.

Please! Your interpretation of "I'll keep you in suspense" only makes sense if you strip the context. The question of concession was only asked because, he's been claiming the election is rigged. So that question of concession, translated to include the context, was, "Ok Donald, are you really going to claim to the nation that the elections are rigged, and that you won't accept their results?" And his, answer was, "W…

Both Clinton and her supporters have been rather obviously laying the groundwork to challenge the results if they lose with claims about Russia hacking election systems and conspiring to support Trump. (I'm still not sure how having a list of voters is meant to help Russia with this if casting fake votes is really that hard, but never mind - this election is post-truth anyway.) The real difference is there's no chance in hell she'd be stupid enough to admit that.

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

#277

Post by downandout »

dragonwriter wrote: post #272
downandout wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reme…

No, she said she didn't know what it was intended to mean in the email in question , which had neither classification banners nor a portion marker on the subject line. It's perfectly reasonable to not know that a lone parenthetical letter at the start of a paragraph in an email that is not itself marked as classified is intended as a classification portion marker. Because parenthetical letters have many uses in gener…

Once again, we are talking about the former Secretary of State and government emails. In that context, it is not reasonable for her to claim that she wouldn't have applied her intimate knowledge of the indicators of classified/confidential materials to the email in question. We won't agree on this, at least until after the election when perhaps many Clinton supporters like yourself will be free to acknowledge simple, unassailable facts about your candidate.

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

#278

Post by gragas »

Armisael16 wrote: post #268
cmdrfred wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%

We aren't talking about the true population though. You can't use z-scores, not that it would make a huge difference.

FiveThirtyEight is extremely biased however, and greatly oversamples Democrats.

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

#279

Post by tropo »

okreallywtf wrote: post #95
cmsimike wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always voted democrat as "the lesser of two evils" but this email situation has really ruffled my feathers (and is why I am voting third party). I get that there is favoritism in everything, but the idea that Hillary (at least before looked like she) walked away scott-free after committing what I believe to be a very serious crime whereas any one of us in a similar situation would have been thrown in jail right…

While I get this sentiment, I would honestly like to know if you feel she has been judged fairly and consistently compared to other email related scandals out there. Most notably the bush white house emails [1] and Colin Powell's use of a personal email account (if not a personal server, though in some ways using an AOL email server has other complications over a private server)[2] I'm not saying the email scandal is…

Those were bad, but there are differences that matter:

The law has changed. Requirements were less strict back when email was new and exotic. We don't punish people for violating laws passed after the not-yet-crime is done; this would violate the constitution.

Bush and Powell were not under investigation, and thus didn't destroy evidence while under investigation.

Bush and Powell didn't have the issues with classified material, possibly excepting one disputed Powell email.

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

#280

Post by yongjik »

swissoak wrote: post #255
chris11 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He tweeted at three a.m. that people should look for a non-existent sex tape because he got his feelings hurt that a model he called fat was publicly supporting Hillary. I for one hope our president isn't concerned about how much models weigh. And if they are, I hope they don't respond to criticism by slut-shaming that person, especially for something they didn't do. So, no suggesting at 3 am that people investigate…

I'm more concerned about our President's view about foreign wars that kill tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians, but I guess if you want to focus on their tweets then go ahead.

...which makes me wonder whether Trump has any "view" at all about foreign wars that kill thousands of civilians.

The fact that he never had to worry about such stuff doesn't bode well for his ability to handle such stuff.

Post reply on HN