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

481–486 of 486 posts

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

#481

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jimmywanger wrote: post #477
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're saying this is a sexist thing? She was linked to Whitewater, was that because she was a woman? She constantly defended Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton... . She moved to New York just so she could run for senator. She and Bill also spent 3 million dollars on her daughter's wedding. Where did she come up with that money, considering that a Preside…

Great list: Like any number of men get away with and no comment. None of that is reprehensible; that is all business as usual. A good fraction of our Senators are 'carpet baggers', not been brought up before. Loyalty to a spouse is lauded if its a man being loyal. #2 speaking fees is George Bush but nobody brought him up. And 'linked to' is another smokescreen catchphrase, slings mud without having to show any real problem.

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

#482

Post by stale2002 »

mozumder wrote: post #374
patrickg_zill wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you raise the point: where in the timeline of subpoenas or other legal requests does the attempt at modifying the email archive, does Combetta's post fit? My understanding: Combetta's post comes 1 day after Hillary had reached an agreement about turning them over. So was she dealing in bad faith with the govt? To be determined I guess?

Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. How is that "bad faith"? "Bad faith" is trying to expose personal email addresses to spammers. The House Republicans would love it if they could publicize her private personal email address. It would render it useless. The IT guy's job here is to make sure that doesn't happen.

It is the job of the FBI to redact the information before it is released. It is ILLEGAL for the IT guy to change any of it when you are given a court order to turn over everything unmodified. But apparently he keeps accidentally bumping the delete key.

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

#483

Post by stale2002 »

mozumder wrote: post #263
stale2002 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a criminal investigation, and a freedom of information request. So yes, according to the courts, they WERE able to forcibly make her turn over the emails.

Later on, but not at the point here. He could delete all her private emails here if he wished.

Not according to the FBI and the courts he can't.

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

#484

Post by dragonwriter »

stale2002 wrote: post #482
mozumder wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combetta is just trying to hide email addresses from spammers. How is that "bad faith"? "Bad faith" is trying to expose personal email addresses to spammers. The House Republicans would love it if they could publicize her private personal email address. It would render it useless. The IT guy's job here is to make sure that doesn't happen.

It is the job of the FBI to redact the information before it is released. It is ILLEGAL for the IT guy to change any of it when you are given a court order to turn over everything unmodified. But apparently he keeps accidentally bumping the delete key.

> It is the job of the FBI to redact the information before it is released.

Its is the job of the FBI to redact information they choose to (or are required to) release in accordance with any legal, operational, etc., concerns applicable to the FBI.

OTOH, its quite possible that the Clinton camp anticipated that they might have reason to directly release some or all of the emails to entities other than the FBI.

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

#485

Post by hueving »

dragonwriter wrote: post #476
hueving wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know anything about the majority of the people you are insulting. It's childish to do that.

I know what they say when polled, and it makes HRC's characterization an understatement. See, e.g., https://thinkprogress.org/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-tru...

You said "weak and cowardly", which is not supported by anything in that link.

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

#486

Post by jimmywanger »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #481
jimmywanger wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying this is a sexist thing? She was linked to Whitewater, was that because she was a woman? She constantly defended Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton... . She moved to New York just so she could run for senator. She and Bill also spent 3 million dollars on her daughter's wedding. Where did she come up with that money, considering that a Preside…

Great list: Like any number of men get away with and no comment. None of that is reprehensible; that is all business as usual. A good fraction of our Senators are 'carpet baggers', not been brought up before. Loyalty to a spouse is lauded if its a man being loyal. #2 speaking fees is George Bush but nobody brought him up. And 'linked to' is another smokescreen catchphrase, slings mud without having to show any real p…

Yes, and none of those men are currently running for president.

If a man did all these things, and were running for POTUS, they'd get raked over the coals, just like Clinton is. What's your point?

Also, Clinton has made it a point to argue for "the right to be believed" for sexual assault victims. And she went to bat for her husband before that statement to cast doubt on his accusers? http://nypost.com/2016/08/15/hillarys-site-edits-sexual-assa...

What a two-faced person who should not be president.

Post reply on HN