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

FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

#21

Post by jc4p »

projectramo wrote: post #8
MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.

If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?

I hate this argument because Colin's actions were so overt that extra regulations were passed after he left to flat out make what he and and others did against standard operating procedure. Stop using this as your argument.

Here's an article on the "clear-cut" policy set in place right after Powell left office in 2005: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email...

Re: FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

#23

Post by Tycho »

jessriedel wrote: post #5

HN Discussion of actual FBI statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037042

That thread has been flagged, despite being clearly a reputable source and in scope for 'hacker news'.

There seems to be a cabal of down-voters to take politically undesirable stories off the HN homepage. For instance, a while ago there was a story called 'The Myth of the Lone Wolf Terrorist.' I read it, then when I clicked back to HN to look at the comments, there was no sign of it.

Re: FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

#24

Post by MrZongle2 »

Two Americas, indeed.

One for you and I, and one for the elite.

I held a clearance for 20 years, during which time I was in-briefed multiple times, received annual security refresher training, and de-briefed when I no longer required access to particular material. The regulations regarding the handling, processing, classification and storage of such material was made crystal clear on every occasion.

I have no doubt that had I done the same as Hillary Clinton, a "reasonable prosecutor" (to use the FBI's theoretical situation) would be easily found to go after me.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Re: FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

#25

Post by projectramo »

MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #14
projectramo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?

I said "what she did was wrong," which is was. I made no claims beyond that. I'm not sure where you're getting anything about my feelings regarding previous people who may have done it. And my feelings on whether things are "overly" classified are irrelevant here. If something is marked classified, there are legal restrictions on its release.

I didn't assume anything about your "feelings regarding previous people who may have done".

And your feelings regarding over-classification is not irrelevant to whether something is "wrong". Wrong is not the same as legal, which is why there is discretion.

Re: FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

#26

Post by mason240 »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #4
potatoman2 wrote: post #2

No surprise here, the fix was in. Very odd conference though, he lists all manner of violations then says no prosecutor would take the case.

The people who are determined to believe the fix is in, will believe the fix is in. Because what could be harder to believe than that Hillary Clinton is basically an honest person trying to do her job?

An honest person trying to do her job wouldn't set up a private email sever to get the ability to delete incriminating evidence in the event of a subpoena.

Re: FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

#27

Post by [deleted] »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #16
projectramo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?

"If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?" Two wrongs don't make a right. Should failure to prosecute prior crimes mean that charges for the same crimes in the future be dropped? "Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?" The regulat…

[deleted]

Re: FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

#28

Post by vageli »

projectramo wrote: post #8
MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.

If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?

If a cop pulls you over for speeding, do you say, "How come you didn't go after that guy in front of me doing 100?!" Just because other people did it doesn't make it right.

Re: FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

#30

Post by projectramo »

vageli wrote: post #28
projectramo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?

If a cop pulls you over for speeding, do you say, "How come you didn't go after that guy in front of me doing 100?!" Just because other people did it doesn't make it right.

No, I would not. But a bunch of people discussing it on Hacker News should definitely say to each other "How come the cop didn't pull over that other guy?"
Post reply on HN