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

301–310 of 319 posts

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

#301

Post by narrowrail »

maxerickson wrote: post #252
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The NPR article linked below links a better one for discussing the history of presidents campaigning: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484817706/looking-back-at-a-ce... McCain in 2008 and Gore in 2000 both sort of wanted the sitting president to stay out of the campaign. Bush was pretty unpopular and Clinton had a lot hanging over him (Bush left office with an approval rating around 30%, Clinton around 60%). Reagan camp…

I know it was a long time ago, so you were probably not considering it, but I thought the Wikiped entry for 1876 pres elections was interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

"Because it was considered improper for a candidate to pursue the presidency actively, neither Tilden nor Hayes actively stumped as part of the campaign, leaving that job to surrogates."

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

#302

Post by flycaliguy »

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…

My armchair prediction is that this is a pro-Clinton move. It will be used as an event that can absorb a lot of the confusing and harmful information spreading from the leaks.

It will then be clearly refuted in a tidy 6 o'clock news bite next week. The goal will be to give average voters a sense of closure that will also encompass the negative buzz around the wikileaked emails.

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

#303

Post by knodi123 »

douche wrote: post #228
knodi123 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama said otherwise. He said he learned about it in the news reports at the same time as everyone else.

Which some of these emails has revealed was bullshit

No it didn't. Unless I'm the only person who doesn't check the domain of every email that arrives in his inbox.

Obama is not Sherlock Holmes, and he can be unaware of something, even if there is evidence he could possibly have seen. You need a little more evidence than that to call somebody a liar.

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

#304

Post by fny »

pfraze wrote: post #289
tropo wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no comparing Trump to Gore. Gore did not so brazenly claim the election was rigged prior to voting, and he did concede after the recount. Also he never claimed universal fraud, just issues with the Florida result alone. In the end, he lost by only 537 votes in Florida.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

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

#305

Post by michaelmrose »

gragas wrote: post #278
Armisael16 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

They don't actually even do polls they agrigate data from a variety of sources.

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

#306

Post by swissoak »

pfraze wrote: post #289
tropo wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gore himself has said, after lots of investigation, he is confident Bush won the electoral vote of Florida.

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

#307

Post by dreta »

drewrv wrote: post #298
gragas wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

33 congressional hearings and $7 million were spent on the whole Benghazi thing, and what did it prove? Obviously she should have supported the ambassador better but hindsight is 20/20. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-committe... Then there's the accusation that she rigged the primary, despite the fact that she had nothing to do with that. It was on the DNC. Or there was the "scandal" about how he…

She ran a private e-mail server for top-secret communication while in office. DNC rigged the primary in her favour, and you’re suggesting she had nothing to do with that. Who’s being absurd here.

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

#308

Post by jessaustin »

danenania wrote: post #197
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…

The stuff you're talking about is awful, but it's par for the course in the system we have. It shouldn't need to be said, but it can get a LOT worse. If you really care about things like democracy, human rights, civil liberties, and freedom of speech, handing the country to an egomaniacal authoritarian just to prove a point is the height of strategic stupidity.

...an egomaniacal authoritarian...

Please clarify whom you're referencing here.

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

#309

Post by jessaustin »

brandon272 wrote: post #214
freehunter wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

...a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees)

Didn't we get a list of these? In order, Trump will nominate his sister, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie. He won't get more than three nominations, and Rudy can't end all civil rights for criminal defendants forever all by himself.

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

#310

Post by jessaustin »

ceejayoz wrote: post #128
stanleydrew wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the House of Representatives brings articles of impeachment, not the Senate, and the House will likely hold its Republican majority. The Senate is only required to actually convict. It's pretty much a disaster simply to be impeached at all. No conviction is really necessary to permanently damage someone politically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_impeachment

> It's pretty much a disaster simply to be impeached at all. We've only got one recent example of a President getting impeached, and it worked out pretty well for him.

One would hope that if the Clintons do set that sort of record, it won't be matched or beaten anytime soon...
Post reply on HN