6 ms·
FBI recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton for personal email server use
- forgottenpass 10y agoAnother active HN thread on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037042
- chvid 10y agoFlagged and not on the front page.
- rancor 10y agoVery likely the work of Hillary's shill force, pretty low odds they don't follow this site when major news comes out.
- dang 10y agoIt's against the rules here to fling 'astroturfing' and 'shill' around without evidence, so please don't do that.
- rancor 10y agoSorry, I thought it was common knowledge that people associated with her campaign were engaging in this type of activity: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac... . I'd look hard at the logs, it certainly feels suspicious to me, although admittedly I haven't seen any commentator action suggesting anything other than a flagging campaign.
- robotjosh 10y agoThe record correctors are quick to point out that you aren't allowed to identify them, its part of the script they get whether or not its really a rule here.
- killface 10y agowhy would a pro-hillary group flag a story on here that says she's not guilty of crimes (or at least that charges won't be pursued due to the actions not warranting criminal prosecution)? I'm literally in disbelief about how people think it's Hillary trying to hide these discussions. Liberal media, indeed...
- robotjosh 10y agoThis story shows how clinton is a liar. The lies started with "the personal server was only used for personal communications", when that was found to be a lie it changed to "no classified info was ever on the server", and when that lie was found out it was changed to "the only classified info was retroactively classified", and when that was found out to be a lie, it just went on and on until everything the most cynical observer alleged turned out to be true.
- k-mcgrady 10y agoSomething needs to be done about this in my opinion. More and more over the last few months I've seen posts get flagged within minutes simply because someone disagrees with the content. Flagging should be for stuff that's irrelevant to HN and poor computer security practices by the woman running for president seems relevant to me - especially compared with a lot of the other stuff that gets upvoted.
- chvid 10y agoI agree. This case (HRC's emails) is world news and has a strong technical component. The flagged post links directly to the statement of the FBI. It is a neutral source and a better read than a lot of the news sites. It is sad that HN in practice censors this stuff just because it is political.
- jobu 10y agoIt's political. Many people prefer to keep politics out of HN, and so it gets flag-killed. I don't really agree, but I can understand the desire for a politics-free area.
- atom-morgan 10y agoLike Snowden. Oh wait...
- shitgoose 10y agoWhat is wrong with political discussions, as long as people are respectful of each others' views?
- killface 10y agoBecause the people who demand respectful discourse are the ones who rarely participate in it themselves.
- dang 10y agoIt seems relevant to you and off-topic to others. In such cases the votes and flags combine to produce a community verdict. Nothing has changed about that in the last few months. We sometimes turn off user flags in exceptional cases but this doesn't seem like one to me.
- patrickmay 10y agoPaul Ryan has already commented: "While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. Based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment." Perhaps we'll see Congress appoint a Special Prosecutor.
- FireBeyond 10y agoYeah, what we need to do is appoint -another- hearing. Just like the eight, or was it nine, hearings into Benghazi, the how many hearings into 9/11. This is why the branches of the government are separate, so political parties can't use them as attack dogs to further their own cause when they don't like things.
- killface 10y agoexcept there's a contingent of people (like the person you replied to) who won't accept anything short of jail time. they've already made up their minds. she's guilty, 100-point-zero percent confidence, and anything that doesn't line up with that narrative is obviously crooked politics or whatever. congress is the attack dog that the republicans have used for the better part of the last 2 decades to make anything stick to the clintons. don't believe the lies about "where there's smoke, there's fire" here. they invented all the smoke, hoping you'll believe there's a fire.
- elgabogringo 10y agoAshcroft appointed a special prosecutor for the Plame leak. Why was none appointed here?
- sremani 10y agoI am impressed by the Clintons, Obama is the only thing that got in their way, other than that, They usually got what they wanted.
- shitgoose 10y ago"We don't submit to terror. We make the terror."