Live data from Hacker News

FBI says it won't recommend charges in Clinton case

abcnews.go.com

61–65 of 65 posts

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

#61

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?

what could be harder to believe?

her husband sold us to the banks when he was president.

they have made hundreds of millions off those banks in intervening years.

That Should be enough, has everyone forgotten 2008 already? it appears so.

millions of people lost money and jobs because of the 2008 financial crisis, and deregulation of the things that lead to the crisis falls squarely in their laps.

they don't even pretend to be against the banks, even though just about everyone in America feels like those banks not only stole from them, but got away Scott free, and they got giant bonuses for doing so.

somehow that's not enough, and lucky us, they're so misguided and fraught with iniquitous thoughts, they keep getting caught out on things, and it not only has no influence on her candidacy but people seem to rally to her to protect her from her own truths.

we seem to have easily forgotten (thanks to trump) that there is little to no difference between the parties (only a topic that comes up after someone is elected and they turn out to be just like the previous one), they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the United corporations of America.

nobody wants to hear this, and it's bound to knock me below 50 karma again, but how is it that, I hear this again and again after someone is elected but then election time comes around and it's back to a clean slate and let's just keep this moving forward.

it's like they started the election news cycle even earlier to keep us enthralled and remove our ability to think rationally by bombarding us with irrelevant crap, when we know the real issues, we talk about them for years.

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

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An ability the FBI explicitly said she didn't use. They went to pains to point out that there was no pattern of concealing evidence found.

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

#63
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yet, immediately after she realized she was being investigated, she immediately deleted relevant data in a way that made it impossible to recover--or words to that effect. What's more, the FBI director said that any reasonable person should have realized the sensitivity of information they were transmitting regardless of its markings. I find it really bizarre how people go out of their way to tune out any information…

What the FBI said was that her lawyers filtered out the relevant emails with algorithms based on headers rather than contents, gave those to the investigators, and non-recoverably deleted the irrelevant remainder. The FBI looked at the search filters and didn't find any evidence of attempted concealment in them.

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

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, let's set up some terms: 1. Government server - whatever the gov sets up 2. Private server - a service like hotmail or gmail 3. Personal server - something on a box you hire someone to set up for you We agree that the violation is setting up a non #1 type server, but you are saying it matters if it was #2 or #3? If that is what you are saying, please elaborate on why you think so. (I don't see that…

Let's enhance said terms. 1. Government server - whatever the gov sets up. Chief attribute(s): security 2. Private sector email provider - a service like hotmail or gmail. Chief attribute(s): convenience and security. 3. Personal homebrew server - something on a box you hire someone to set up for you. Chief attribute(s): control and convenience. A public servant who would use #2 for testing purposes so that they can…

Well, okay so this is not a question of the law, or the internal Department of State rules. You're bringing up the question of intent. Why would someone set up a personal homebrew server?

So let me first sort out a number of motives:

1. They may think that a private sector service is puts government documents in private hands which they might consider to be bad.

2. She may not be acquainted with the security differences between the homebrew server and yahoo mail. (I am not. I would assume that a competent technical person with off the shelf software could make it fairly secure.)

I don't know if we must impute nefarious motives from a personal homebrew server.

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

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is saying we shouldn't.

There seems to be a world of difference between the way people are calling for prosecution for HRC and for her predecessors.

So what does it mean if you didn't call for the prosecution of her predecessors and also don't call for her prosecution?

You're supporting corruption at that point, right?

Post reply on HN