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

House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 486 posts

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#401

Post by curried_haskell »

mozumder wrote: post #373
ars wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only emails related to official business. The distinction is crucial to these questions of law, but is consistently forgotten or elided, even by this Hill article. It's not forgotten. No one believes her. (Except maybe you.) She deleted the personal emails. Who does that? At most you don't turn them over, and then store them somewhere. Hard disks are cheap. But no, she deleted them, making 100% sure no one could ev…

It's fine that she deleted her personal emails. Everyone does that. No one really cares about this issue except the House Republicans. They really are trying their hardest to figure out something here, but are obviously coming up empty. It just makes them look foolish.

Are you serious? Can you see you yourself right now? Take a step back, back from the politics, and think about the kind of behaviour you are defending right now.

It's not even Hillary's behaviour that makes me lose the most faith in western democracy. It's people like you. The people who go around justifying this corruption because your candidate did it and the other candidate's party is trying to dig it up.

You make me sick.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#402

Post by saboot »

imron wrote: post #382
saboot wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrongly characterizing what I am saying. Maybe try reading my original post again? People can only "allow" them to inject themselves into discourse when they have full consent, ie what their agenda is. Ignoring them doesn't silence them, nor makes it clear that their ideas are not acceptable. Did I give you any links? I indicated that they are there and it is explicit and obvious. If you cannot handle that a…

> Maybe try reading my original post again? Ok, sure > But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas Yes. I am ignoring such people, because such tactics don't merit anything more. I would also ignore them if they claimed to be using Mickey Mouse or any other broadly popular icon to promote their ideas. Because…

1. Not a member of the clinton campaign

2. > I can handle it fine. It's the Clinton campaign (and surrogates) that are trying to actively associate Pepe as a symbol of racism and that's what I object to.

People promoting racism are doing this, you want to stay willfully ignorant about it.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#403

Post by JoeAltmaier »

hueving wrote: post #362
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But some of us would go a little further. When you see a crowd around a bully and a blowhard, you can be sure they are almost all weak and cowardly.

Do you gain a sense of self-importance from making baseless accusations about millions of people you know nothing about? If not, what is the purpose?

I only know about what I see of that guy, plus a knowledge of human nature. Just an observation. Been true since grade school, held true all my life. Why would it change now?

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#404

Post by JoeAltmaier »

throwaway2016b wrote: post #274
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of that I suppose. But also, he's an evil man. Doesn't take a conspiracy theory to want to see him defeated.

Hillary is far, far more deserving of that label than Trump. To campaign and donate millions of dollars on her behalf requires ignorance, a seriously twisted moral compass, or some financial and political incentives that you don't want to talk about.

She's spent her life struggling to help children and single parents. Donations fund her charity that has helped millions worldwide. To twist that into something bad is just more of the political smokescreen that plagues any woman in public office.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#405

Post by jessaustin »

ben174 wrote: post #146
School-Cotton wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Literally what point are you making? Dude, do you think this is a football game? That scoring a point against your opponent negates points scored against you? I suspect a big chunk of the people complaining about this would have complained even harder when Bush did it (if what you say is true), if they had been old enough to be aware what was going on, and had social media like we do now. So, what is your…

On the football game analogy: yes, there are two teams. One of these teams will win. Both teams suck but at the end of the day, most people will want to vote for the person who made the most points. It's actually exactly what it is.

...most people will want to vote for the person who made the most points.

This is true, and baffling. I try to vote as if the process matters, although I'll be the first to admit it's largely a waste of my time. Meanwhile, the morons who loudly declaim the fundamental importance of voting, care only about being "right". SMH.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#406

Post by jessaustin »

PKop wrote: post #361
koube wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not talking about Powell's actions, where Powell recommended that Clinton use a private email. He's talking about the Bush administration, who avoided any email controversy on their private email server simply by deleting all 22 million emails. None of them broke any law, as laid out by Comey, who is famous for bashing heads with politicians. The law was executed by Comey faithfully and there was no crime to pro…

Ok so this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... Yea that's terrible. If there was evidence of a (possibly) compromised, unsecured personal server, with high level officials talking about national security on it (including Bush) then I would think it would be even worse. But it is bad as is. Also, I think Bush was a pretty terrible president in many respects and overall I'm not a fan of his…

As a General who above all should know this better than anyone, he's a disgrace...

If watching the pundit shows has taught me anything, it's that there are few classes of public figures more venal, hawkish, shameless, or blatantly self-serving than the military brass. It's a miracle they can convince anyone to follow their orders.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#407

Post by snowwrestler »

ars wrote: post #367
snowwrestler wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The State Department did not get a warrant before asking Clinton and her staff to turn over emails that went through Clinton's server. Only emails related to official business. The distinction is crucial to these questions of law, but is consistently forgotten or elided, even by this Hill article.

> Only emails related to official business. The distinction is crucial to these questions of law, but is consistently forgotten or elided, even by this Hill article. It's not forgotten. No one believes her. (Except maybe you.) She deleted the personal emails. Who does that? At most you don't turn them over, and then store them somewhere. Hard disks are cheap. But no, she deleted them, making 100% sure no one could ev…

Deleting personal emails is common and legal, even for the Secretary of State.

You're essentially arguing that a person who desires privacy is therefore suspicious. I would hope that folks here on HN recognize that's a bullshit argument.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#408

Post by jessaustin »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #160
imron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> huh? It's horrifying https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr... Edit: In response to your edit, she's attacking a cartoon frog . In seriousness. Not only that, but she's trying to attribute characteristics to that frog that simply aren't any core part of why people post Pepe memes. All of that questions the sensibilities of her campaign. Basically her campaign is going all out trying to paint T…

> because that's really all they have left at this point It's really not, the reason why they keep hammering it home is because his vocal support among the fringes is unprecedented in the modern era. They've got plenty of things to attack him on - which they do.

...the fringes...

Who is this? How can I tell who of my neighbors is in this group? Having made that determination, how should I treat those neighbors?

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#409

Post by [deleted] »

mozumder wrote: post #372
ars wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They already have her official business emails; they have had them for years. No, they have the emails she claims are official. Big difference. And she has zero credibility here. Negative credibility even, if she claims they have all the official emails you can be 100% sure they do not.

And if they want more, they can always get a search warrant for them. That would help the Republicans gain back some credibility if they did. Right now everyone considers this a colossal waste of time, exemplary of Republican waste. Republicans are quickly finding that there are limits to their political powers. The public needs to be forceful in telling the House to stop wasting government money on Hillary emails.

[deleted]

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#410

Post by douche »

learc83 wrote: post #281
Dagwoodie wrote: post #137

I have yet to see a single example of Trump's racism. It's an oft repeated cliche that has yet to be demonstrated by anyone. As much of a "clown" as trump might be, half of his labels are completely pulled out of thin air.

In 1989 he reportedly said "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day." He spent 5 years pushing the birther conspiracy even after Obama produced his birth certificate. He also implied that Obama was a Muslim despite his claims to the contrary. He's implied several times that Obama sides with terrorists because of his upbring…

I recall him referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Fauxcahontas", but I may just have that ingrained after her unsubstantiated claims keep resurfacing in Massachusetts politics.
Post reply on HN