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

281–290 of 319 posts

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

#281

Post by languagewars »

tylerwhipple wrote: post #205
abootstrapper wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as we can tell, she has not committed any crimes. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Just like Trump with the alleged sexual assaults right? No one brings those up....

He raped his ex wife then did whatever else and ran a bunch of scams. She gave out what she believed to be classified data in a system she clearly understands. Yet even if neither understands their crimes are crimes they are responsible for them under US law. If you want to fix US law and/or the election system then arrest them both. Then something has to be fixed or the system has to run with no inaugurated president. The system functioning with no president is an even better reform in my book.

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

#282

Post by dragonwriter »

downandout wrote: post #277
dragonwriter wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most government emails are not classified. Outside of a classified context, parenthetical letters have the full take off uses they have in general English communication, especially the use that Clinton suggested was the only one that came to mind in the context of the email in question.

Without any of the indications that should have been present indicating that the email itself was classified, there's little radon to think a stay parenthetical (C) is intended as a portion marker.

Clinton didn't say she didn't know what (C) meant as a portion marker (which would be worthy of mockery) , she said she didn't know that the (C) in an email lacking any indication that it was a classified document was intended to have the special meaning that (C) has within a classified document.

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

#283

Post by chris11 »

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.

I haven't gotten to a point where I can compare Clinton and Trump on policy. First I don't think Trump really has consistent or in depth policy on anything. Second, I just don't think Trump has the temperament or stability to be President. I don't know why Trump would be better on foreign wars. But I think foreign policy under a Trump presidency would be based entirely on Trump's personal opinion.

Sure, tweets are inconsequential, and I think politics would be more productive if disagreements focused on policy differences. But his words and actions show that he's a really petty and shallow person. And he would be a petty and shallow President. I don't think he really has many specific well thought out plans he could actually implement.

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

#284

Post by tropo »

pfraze wrote: post #160
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…

Oh, stop. I don't like Hillary, but Trump says he'll contest a loss. That's what actual subversion of the process looks like. Everything you're bringing up is politics. > Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs…

Gore contested his loss. Was that actual subversion of the process?

If the election is close, I think the loser has a duty to contest the loss. Trump contesting the election would be every bit as right as Gore contesting the election.

What is so bad about this? The reaction people are having is strange. It's as if people are purposely misinterpreting Trump's words as implying that he will march on Washington D.C. with a militia. The realistic assumption is a Gore-style lawsuit, and there is nothing wrong with that.

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

#285

Post by downandout »

dragonwriter wrote: post #282
downandout wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most government emails are not classified. Outside of a classified context, parenthetical letters have the full take off uses they have in general English communication, especially the use that Clinton suggested was the only one that came to mind in the context of the email in question. Without any of the indications that should have been present indicating that the email itself was classified, there's little radon t…

>Most government emails are not classified.

I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential. Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President without Trump in the picture. She lied, she will very likely continue lying, and given the history of the Clinton family, the odds are overwhelmingly high that this will be far from the most significant scandal overshadowing her candidacy/Presidency.

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

#286

Post by jonknee »

yourapostasy wrote: post #200
koolba wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. I'll give you the point on being technically correct (and Chaffetz being full of...) but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time.

> ...but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time. Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition. While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty unti…

There is not a good comparison because if it were anyone else no one would ever have known about the investigation. The FBI does not normally comment on ongoing investigations and since no charges were ever brought there would not have been any disclosure of the matter.

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

#287

Post by heurist »

yolesaber wrote: post #155
maxerickson wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political people say "clean this up" about anything they don't want in the media. Anything. Everything. (I know this because I over consume political news media and they have adopted it as a term; it's really horrifying, they talk about the campaigns attempting to manipulate them instead of doing real analysis)

I work in public policy. You realize what they said they had to clean up right? The president lied on television about his knowledge of the servers.

Or addresses are hidden in his email client and he didn't take the time to look.

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

#288

Post by dragonwriter »

downandout wrote: post #285
dragonwriter wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most government emails are not classified. Outside of a classified context, parenthetical letters have the full take off uses they have in general English communication, especially the use that Clinton suggested was the only one that came to mind in the context of the email in question. Without any of the indications that should have been present indicating that the email itself was classified, there's little radon t…

>Most government emails are not classified. I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential. Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President without Trump in the picture. She lied, she will very likely continue lying, and giv…

> I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential

Probably, so? The fact that it's a mixed environment means that it's a code switching situation, which means that the indicators that a particular context is in play are critical. There's a reason that classified documents have banners (and though it's not the purpose of portion marking email subject lines to serve as a "this document is classified" flag, it probably in practice schedule at least as useful as a code switching trigger as proper banners.

> Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President

We won't agree on this question even then. I mean, my position on the emails in general or this particular point hasn't changed since I was a vociferous opponent of Clinton in the primary, I don't see why it would even if I became entirely disenchanted with her performance in office.

I suspect you're projecting from the fact that your reaction is based on your prefered electoral outcome to assume the same must be true of anyone who disagrees with you as well.

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

#289

Post by pfraze »

tropo wrote: post #284
pfraze wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, stop. I don't like Hillary, but Trump says he'll contest a loss. That's what actual subversion of the process looks like. Everything you're bringing up is politics. > Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs…

Gore contested his loss. Was that actual subversion of the process? If the election is close, I think the loser has a duty to contest the loss. Trump contesting the election would be every bit as right as Gore contesting the election. What is so bad about this? The reaction people are having is strange. It's as if people are purposely misinterpreting Trump's words as implying that he will march on Washington D.C. wit…

I agree with you, to a point. Gore's case was uniquely bad, and I'm not convinced it wasn't fraud, personally. But he made the challenge after there was evidence of fraud; he didn't lead up to the election hinting that any potential loss is due to a rigged vote.

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

#290

Post by heurist »

cmdrfred wrote: post #261
heurist wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

So they found effectively nothing, which is all they'll find here.
Post reply on HN