6 ms·

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.

JulianMorrison 10y ago
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?
- MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
  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.
  - projectramo 10y ago
    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-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ 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?
    - marcusgarvey 10y ago
      >previous people in the same position also had private servers Such as?
      - projectramo 10y ago
        Powell and Rice. Click on the link.
        marcusgarvey 10y ago
        False. They did not have private servers.
        projectramo 10y ago
        Private as opposed to public or government. Not private in the sense of their own set up for themselves. I didn't think that was the distinction you were focused on.
        marcusgarvey 10y ago
        But the distinction is material.
        projectramo 10y ago
        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 it matters much, but am curious about your argument).
        marcusgarvey 10y ago
        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 execute the duties of their jobs is one thing. A public servant who would go to the lengths needed to secure #3, thereby placing their complete archive beyond the reach of the public but well within the reach of intruders, has in my view used their public office for private gain at the potential cost of national security. Their motives and judgment are entirely dubious.
    - MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
      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.
      - projectramo 10y ago
        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.
        MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
        I'm not trying to get into an argument, but you specifically said: "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?" That pretty clearly implicated previous people and my beliefs/feelings, no? I feel like you're trolling me here.
        projectramo 10y ago
        Not at all. I chose your response because you seemed more balanced than some of the other people who are way out on one side of the debate or the other. So I wondered why you, evidently relatively moderate in your view, fell where you did. In my eyes, the fact the key issue was the accepted actions of the predecessors. (I may have this wrong, though, based on another response I received in this thread, but that response was somewhat unclear.) So, I wonder if you accept that her predecessors did the same thing (which, I assume, is accepted fact that they did, so nothing to do with emotions), you feel the way you do about her.
        jrs235 10y ago
        I fail to see where s/he said they were okay with the predecessors actions. You appear to be making a huge assumption. S/he said what she did was wrong and nothing about predecessors. I would make the assumption that s/he believes the predecessors were wrong too (assuming they did the exact same thing) and not assume that this has something to do with subject of this instance.
    - ZoF 10y ago
      >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? The law is the law. It should be held against all of them. This is akin to saying, 'well that robber got away with it in the past, why do you hold it against this gentlemen for stealing?' >Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such? What do this have to do with the mishandling of classified info? If it's classified, it's classified; that it might have been classified erroneously or too liberally has nothing to do with the fact that it is currently classified and should be treated as such.
    - MrZongle2 10y ago
      "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 regulations for declassification of classified material are quite clear about who is authorized to do it and when. Whether material is overclassified or not is as irrelevant as arguing that the quality of the diamond in a stolen ring should determine whether or not theft charges are filed against a suspect. Edit: I cannot reply to @projectramo in the thread, who asked "Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?" My answer: yes, if the statute of limitations (if one exists in such a case) has not expired. The law MUST be applied equally for all, or it is tyranny.
      - projectramo 10y ago
        Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?
        jklinger410 10y ago
        No one is saying we shouldn't.
        projectramo 10y ago
        There seems to be a world of difference between the way people are calling for prosecution for HRC and for her predecessors.
        jklinger410 10y ago
        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?
    - jc4p 10y ago
      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.
      - projectramo 10y ago
        Tell me more about this. In particular, I am curious about "extra regulations were passed." Did Congress pass new laws because of Colin Powell?
        jc4p 10y ago
        I tried updating my post but because this post was flagged away it seems to have duplicated somewhere else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037507 -- This article explains it a bit, it's also light on the details. If you read the Judicial Watch testimony of her staffers, a lot of them touch on this.
        projectramo 10y ago
        okay, well, if this bears out what you said, I'll stop using this argument. p.s. what article?
        jc4p 10y ago
        Bah did the link in my comment not work? I tried updating my original comment to link to http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email... but now there's two versions of my comment, one pre-edit in this chain and one post-edit in another chain I can't find. This article is heavily biased, I think, but it mentions the post Powell rulings. In the Judicial Watch testimony of Cheryl Mills she mentioned the post Powell decisions.
        projectramo 10y ago
    - jc4p 10y ago
      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-rule-hillary-clinton-115804 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email...
    - vageli 10y ago
      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.
      - projectramo 10y ago
        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?"
  - Arnor 10y ago
    I'm with you on this. It shouldn't be hand-waved away. It's serious. I just wish we could find some appropriate action between hand-waving and federal indictment...
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      The usual action for lawyers, bankers or other professionals who were "careless", is to ban them from performing their jobs for a few years. So perhaps she should be banned from holding a government job for a few years?
- rorykoehler 10y ago
  She is certainly not what you said. This video sums up her character perfectly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U Pure evil but you'll believe what you want.
  - Arnor 10y ago
    As will you, yes?
    - rorykoehler 10y ago
      Possibly... I actually used to like Hilary until I found out more about her. Make of that what you will.
      - spacemanmatt 10y ago
        That has been my experience, as well. I could look past decades of Republican harassment but her own campaign has been a real eye-opener.
- mason240 10y ago
  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.
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    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.
- jwebb99 10y ago
  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 that paints Clinton/Trump/Sanders in a bad light (depending on your temperament). I'm not saying Clinton should be tarred and feathered (or even sent to jail), but she has hardly been exonerated of any wrongdoing. Why do people find that so difficult to admit?
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wahsd 10y ago
  You are deluding yourself. The hardest thing to believe is that she is an "honest person trying to do her job". All the flags and all the signs and all the bells and all the whistle are blowing and screeching at peek levels; yet here you are acting as though the fact that someone who cannot do anything without running afoul of laws and rule and controversy is somehow an honest person. You are the equivalent of a person who everyone sees all the signs and signals and clear evidence that the person they love, blindly, is cheating on them and lying to them, yet simply cannot wrap their mind around reality and just keeps on making excuses and evades facing the truth. It's quite amazing how basically a whole half of society has fallen into a kind of mental disorder where even as they see their spouse cheat on them right in front of their eyes, just turns their head away and voids looking at the reality they are seeing in order to suppress it. It's quite an amazing phenomenon. I guess it's base in fantasies of what she is and you imagine will come of her in spite of simply being played as a tool for her personal gain at he expense of sacrificing the most basic fundamentals of our government and society.
- ldehaan 10y ago
  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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

JulianMorrison 10y ago

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?

MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
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.
- projectramo 10y ago
  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-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ 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?
  - marcusgarvey 10y ago
    >previous people in the same position also had private servers Such as?
    - projectramo 10y ago
      Powell and Rice. Click on the link.
      - marcusgarvey 10y ago
        False. They did not have private servers.
        projectramo 10y ago
        Private as opposed to public or government. Not private in the sense of their own set up for themselves. I didn't think that was the distinction you were focused on.
        marcusgarvey 10y ago
        But the distinction is material.
        projectramo 10y ago
        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 it matters much, but am curious about your argument).
        marcusgarvey 10y ago
        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 execute the duties of their jobs is one thing. A public servant who would go to the lengths needed to secure #3, thereby placing their complete archive beyond the reach of the public but well within the reach of intruders, has in my view used their public office for private gain at the potential cost of national security. Their motives and judgment are entirely dubious.
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
    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.
    - projectramo 10y ago
      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.
      - MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
        I'm not trying to get into an argument, but you specifically said: "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?" That pretty clearly implicated previous people and my beliefs/feelings, no? I feel like you're trolling me here.
        projectramo 10y ago
        Not at all. I chose your response because you seemed more balanced than some of the other people who are way out on one side of the debate or the other. So I wondered why you, evidently relatively moderate in your view, fell where you did. In my eyes, the fact the key issue was the accepted actions of the predecessors. (I may have this wrong, though, based on another response I received in this thread, but that response was somewhat unclear.) So, I wonder if you accept that her predecessors did the same thing (which, I assume, is accepted fact that they did, so nothing to do with emotions), you feel the way you do about her.
        jrs235 10y ago
        I fail to see where s/he said they were okay with the predecessors actions. You appear to be making a huge assumption. S/he said what she did was wrong and nothing about predecessors. I would make the assumption that s/he believes the predecessors were wrong too (assuming they did the exact same thing) and not assume that this has something to do with subject of this instance.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    >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? The law is the law. It should be held against all of them. This is akin to saying, 'well that robber got away with it in the past, why do you hold it against this gentlemen for stealing?' >Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such? What do this have to do with the mishandling of classified info? If it's classified, it's classified; that it might have been classified erroneously or too liberally has nothing to do with the fact that it is currently classified and should be treated as such.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    "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 regulations for declassification of classified material are quite clear about who is authorized to do it and when. Whether material is overclassified or not is as irrelevant as arguing that the quality of the diamond in a stolen ring should determine whether or not theft charges are filed against a suspect. Edit: I cannot reply to @projectramo in the thread, who asked "Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?" My answer: yes, if the statute of limitations (if one exists in such a case) has not expired. The law MUST be applied equally for all, or it is tyranny.
    - projectramo 10y ago
      Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?
      - jklinger410 10y ago
        No one is saying we shouldn't.
        projectramo 10y ago
        There seems to be a world of difference between the way people are calling for prosecution for HRC and for her predecessors.
        jklinger410 10y ago
        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?
  - jc4p 10y ago
    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.
    - projectramo 10y ago
      Tell me more about this. In particular, I am curious about "extra regulations were passed." Did Congress pass new laws because of Colin Powell?
      - jc4p 10y ago
        I tried updating my post but because this post was flagged away it seems to have duplicated somewhere else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037507 -- This article explains it a bit, it's also light on the details. If you read the Judicial Watch testimony of her staffers, a lot of them touch on this.
        projectramo 10y ago
        okay, well, if this bears out what you said, I'll stop using this argument. p.s. what article?
        jc4p 10y ago
        Bah did the link in my comment not work? I tried updating my original comment to link to http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email... but now there's two versions of my comment, one pre-edit in this chain and one post-edit in another chain I can't find. This article is heavily biased, I think, but it mentions the post Powell rulings. In the Judicial Watch testimony of Cheryl Mills she mentioned the post Powell decisions.
        projectramo 10y ago
  - jc4p 10y ago
    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-rule-hillary-clinton-115804 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email...
  - vageli 10y ago
    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.
    - projectramo 10y ago
      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?"
- Arnor 10y ago
  I'm with you on this. It shouldn't be hand-waved away. It's serious. I just wish we could find some appropriate action between hand-waving and federal indictment...
  - jazzyk 10y ago
    The usual action for lawyers, bankers or other professionals who were "careless", is to ban them from performing their jobs for a few years. So perhaps she should be banned from holding a government job for a few years?
rorykoehler 10y ago
She is certainly not what you said. This video sums up her character perfectly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U Pure evil but you'll believe what you want.
- Arnor 10y ago
  As will you, yes?
  - rorykoehler 10y ago
    Possibly... I actually used to like Hilary until I found out more about her. Make of that what you will.
    - spacemanmatt 10y ago
      That has been my experience, as well. I could look past decades of Republican harassment but her own campaign has been a real eye-opener.
mason240 10y ago
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.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  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.
jwebb99 10y ago
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 that paints Clinton/Trump/Sanders in a bad light (depending on your temperament). I'm not saying Clinton should be tarred and feathered (or even sent to jail), but she has hardly been exonerated of any wrongdoing. Why do people find that so difficult to admit?
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wahsd 10y ago
You are deluding yourself. The hardest thing to believe is that she is an "honest person trying to do her job". All the flags and all the signs and all the bells and all the whistle are blowing and screeching at peek levels; yet here you are acting as though the fact that someone who cannot do anything without running afoul of laws and rule and controversy is somehow an honest person. You are the equivalent of a person who everyone sees all the signs and signals and clear evidence that the person they love, blindly, is cheating on them and lying to them, yet simply cannot wrap their mind around reality and just keeps on making excuses and evades facing the truth. It's quite amazing how basically a whole half of society has fallen into a kind of mental disorder where even as they see their spouse cheat on them right in front of their eyes, just turns their head away and voids looking at the reality they are seeing in order to suppress it. It's quite an amazing phenomenon. I guess it's base in fantasies of what she is and you imagine will come of her in spite of simply being played as a tool for her personal gain at he expense of sacrificing the most basic fundamentals of our government and society.
ldehaan 10y ago
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.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]