8 ms·

That was a very strange article with all the near-wishful "igniting speculation about a Clinton defeat" stuff. The whole emails issue has been inside baseball,

by mzw_mzw 10y ago

That was a very strange article with all the near-wishful "igniting speculation about a Clinton defeat" stuff. The whole emails issue has been inside baseball, politics-wise. Insiders and pundits love yelling about it but average voters either don't care (the vast majority) or have already assumed she's guilty/not guilty and priced that into their vote. Reopening the investigation is not going to change the election outcome.

eli 10y ago
I've heard many people cite emails as the main reason they are not voting for her. I assume most of them actually would never have voted for her anyway, but it's a real issue.
- acdha 10y ago
  Those statements are always hard to trust, however, since you don't know how many of them are people who may not feeling comfortable stating their true beliefs in that forum or don't really care but are trying to encourage people they believe would vote for the other side not to vote at all. I would bet that we're seeing a lot of that this year because there are many Republicans who don't like a Democrat winning but also aren't keen to have their personal reputation tarred by support for their party's candidate. If, say, you feel there is an immigration problem it's much easier to say something about email servers rather than trying to defend Trump's positions on the issue or defend yourself against charges of racism.
- JohnTHaller 10y ago
  The majority of them have no idea what they're talking about if you ask them "what about the emails?" and are just parroting a talking point. Even if she was fully cleared and they were made aware of the fact that Republicans have done the same thing, it would not change their minds.
  - philk10 10y ago
    Exactly - I had an argument with one who kept parroting that she had 3 servers but only said 1 when asked by the FBI, when I asked if they knew what an email server was they had no clue
- cmsimike 10y ago
  I've always voted democrat as "the lesser of two evils" but this email situation has really ruffled my feathers (and is why I am voting third party). I get that there is favoritism in everything, but the idea that Hillary (at least before looked like she) walked away scott-free after committing what I believe to be a very serious crime whereas any one of us in a similar situation would have been thrown in jail right away and smeared as a terrorist didn't sit well with me for obvious reasons.
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    While I get this sentiment, I would honestly like to know if you feel she has been judged fairly and consistently compared to other email related scandals out there. Most notably the bush white house emails [1] and Colin Powell's use of a personal email account (if not a personal server, though in some ways using an AOL email server has other complications over a private server)[2] I'm not saying the email scandal is a non-issue, but I find it very interesting that so much emphasis is placed on what she has done despite plenty of other questionable incidents previously. It follows well the narrative that she is being at the very least held to a different standard than other politicians. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... [2] http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/did-colin-powell-use-personal-email-secretary-of-state-aol/ http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/did-colin-powell-use-personal-...
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      Other politicians wished they were held to the same standard as the Clintons. The Bush admin had plenty of other controversies and they were reamed by the media repeatedly for those (and justifiably so). It's not like it was hands off. Maybe this is a bigger issue because of the continued lying about what happened, which is an ongoing issue for Clinton.
      - okreallywtf 10y ago
        I admit her handling of the issue has not been great, but that is a trend with most of her "scandals". How she handles them is often worse than the scandal itself (in that there tends to be smoke but no fire). This to me supports the idea she wasn't trying to hide her state dept emails where they couldn't be accessed via FOI requests. If that were the goal, they would have done what the bush administration did and use that server almost exclusively so that both sender and receiver were on a private server. As it was, emails to and from other state dept staffers using their state dept emails would have copies. If that was an attempt to hide official emails it was not a good one.
insickness 10y ago
> average voters either don't care What were you saying about 'wishful thinking?' A presidential candidate under FBI investigation on election day is huge.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  I agree, it is! But that still doesn't mean people (or, at least, swing voters) actually care.
  - ls66 10y ago
    Her campaign staff certainly cared about this issue.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      It's their job to care about this issue.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    Swing voters are exactly who would care, as they should. Edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/09/hillary-clintons-botched-handing-of-her-email-server-is-why-this-race-is-even-close/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/09/hi...
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    Voting for trump has got to be more loathsome to most that putting up with Clinton's shenanigans.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      It seems few people are actually voting for Clinton, but rather voting against Trump. What is something like this leaves such a bad taste in their mouth that they decide to not vote at all?
      - 10y ago
Kenji 10y ago
The e-mails should have put her in prison, and they would have put anyone else in the same situation in prison. But you're right, with her being her, they're a complete nonissue. They simply don't matter at all.
- malchow 10y ago
  To be absolutely objective about it, there really are people in prison for doing with confidential state secrets what Secretary Clinton did with confidential state secrets. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-inves...
  - jljljl 10y ago
    There's a few likely differences, although it's hard to tell from the limited info in the Clinton case: 1) Saucier generated the classified information. He took the photos. I don't think there was evidence the Clinton was knowingly sending classified information to non-cleared individuals 2) Saucier himself deleted the files from his laptop after learning he was under investigation. The FBI in Clinton's case determined that there was no willful attempt to obstruct justice 3) The quantity and quality of the information likely differs. If the Clinton emails contained photographs of classified military hardware, we'd probably see more motion. See Comey's quote comparing the Petraeus case to the Clinton case: "So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted." http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-clinton-david-petraeus/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-c...
    - jbermudes 10y ago
      Regarding #2, there's some circumstantial evidence that there was an attempt to hide emails either through deleting them or not turning them over: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBA7BOJ https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBA7BOJ
carsongross 10y ago
> Reopening the investigation is not going to change the election outcome. Perhaps true. But it does indicate who Comey thinks is going to win the election. If you were the director of the FBI would you re-open an investigation of your about-to-be boss?
- jonknee 10y ago
  Comey already threw his about-to-be boss under the bus by publicly denouncing her deemed-legal behavior. What does he have to lose at this point?
  - carsongross 10y ago
    I guess we'll see.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  Or he is just doing his job and not worrying about who is going to be president? I don't know that much about him but I would like to think its possible for some people to be non partisan.

by mzw_mzw 10y ago

eli 10y ago

I've heard many people cite emails as the main reason they are not voting for her. I assume most of them actually would never have voted for her anyway, but it's a real issue.

acdha 10y ago
Those statements are always hard to trust, however, since you don't know how many of them are people who may not feeling comfortable stating their true beliefs in that forum or don't really care but are trying to encourage people they believe would vote for the other side not to vote at all. I would bet that we're seeing a lot of that this year because there are many Republicans who don't like a Democrat winning but also aren't keen to have their personal reputation tarred by support for their party's candidate. If, say, you feel there is an immigration problem it's much easier to say something about email servers rather than trying to defend Trump's positions on the issue or defend yourself against charges of racism.
JohnTHaller 10y ago
The majority of them have no idea what they're talking about if you ask them "what about the emails?" and are just parroting a talking point. Even if she was fully cleared and they were made aware of the fact that Republicans have done the same thing, it would not change their minds.
- philk10 10y ago
  Exactly - I had an argument with one who kept parroting that she had 3 servers but only said 1 when asked by the FBI, when I asked if they knew what an email server was they had no clue
cmsimike 10y ago
I've always voted democrat as "the lesser of two evils" but this email situation has really ruffled my feathers (and is why I am voting third party). I get that there is favoritism in everything, but the idea that Hillary (at least before looked like she) walked away scott-free after committing what I believe to be a very serious crime whereas any one of us in a similar situation would have been thrown in jail right away and smeared as a terrorist didn't sit well with me for obvious reasons.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  While I get this sentiment, I would honestly like to know if you feel she has been judged fairly and consistently compared to other email related scandals out there. Most notably the bush white house emails [1] and Colin Powell's use of a personal email account (if not a personal server, though in some ways using an AOL email server has other complications over a private server)[2] I'm not saying the email scandal is a non-issue, but I find it very interesting that so much emphasis is placed on what she has done despite plenty of other questionable incidents previously. It follows well the narrative that she is being at the very least held to a different standard than other politicians. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv... [2] http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/did-colin-powell-use-personal-email-secretary-of-state-aol/ http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/did-colin-powell-use-personal-...
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Other politicians wished they were held to the same standard as the Clintons. The Bush admin had plenty of other controversies and they were reamed by the media repeatedly for those (and justifiably so). It's not like it was hands off. Maybe this is a bigger issue because of the continued lying about what happened, which is an ongoing issue for Clinton.
    - okreallywtf 10y ago
      I admit her handling of the issue has not been great, but that is a trend with most of her "scandals". How she handles them is often worse than the scandal itself (in that there tends to be smoke but no fire). This to me supports the idea she wasn't trying to hide her state dept emails where they couldn't be accessed via FOI requests. If that were the goal, they would have done what the bush administration did and use that server almost exclusively so that both sender and receiver were on a private server. As it was, emails to and from other state dept staffers using their state dept emails would have copies. If that was an attempt to hide official emails it was not a good one.

insickness 10y ago

> average voters either don't care What were you saying about 'wishful thinking?' A presidential candidate under FBI investigation on election day is huge.

mzw_mzw 10y ago
I agree, it is! But that still doesn't mean people (or, at least, swing voters) actually care.
- ls66 10y ago
  Her campaign staff certainly cared about this issue.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    It's their job to care about this issue.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Swing voters are exactly who would care, as they should. Edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/09/hillary-clintons-botched-handing-of-her-email-server-is-why-this-race-is-even-close/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/09/hi...
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  Voting for trump has got to be more loathsome to most that putting up with Clinton's shenanigans.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    It seems few people are actually voting for Clinton, but rather voting against Trump. What is something like this leaves such a bad taste in their mouth that they decide to not vote at all?
    - 10y ago

Kenji 10y ago

The e-mails should have put her in prison, and they would have put anyone else in the same situation in prison. But you're right, with her being her, they're a complete nonissue. They simply don't matter at all.

malchow 10y ago
To be absolutely objective about it, there really are people in prison for doing with confidential state secrets what Secretary Clinton did with confidential state secrets. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-inves...
- jljljl 10y ago
  There's a few likely differences, although it's hard to tell from the limited info in the Clinton case: 1) Saucier generated the classified information. He took the photos. I don't think there was evidence the Clinton was knowingly sending classified information to non-cleared individuals 2) Saucier himself deleted the files from his laptop after learning he was under investigation. The FBI in Clinton's case determined that there was no willful attempt to obstruct justice 3) The quantity and quality of the information likely differs. If the Clinton emails contained photographs of classified military hardware, we'd probably see more motion. See Comey's quote comparing the Petraeus case to the Clinton case: "So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted." http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-clinton-david-petraeus/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-c...
  - jbermudes 10y ago
    Regarding #2, there's some circumstantial evidence that there was an attempt to hide emails either through deleting them or not turning them over: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBA7BOJ https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBA7BOJ

carsongross 10y ago

> Reopening the investigation is not going to change the election outcome. Perhaps true. But it does indicate who Comey thinks is going to win the election. If you were the director of the FBI would you re-open an investigation of your about-to-be boss?

jonknee 10y ago
Comey already threw his about-to-be boss under the bus by publicly denouncing her deemed-legal behavior. What does he have to lose at this point?
- carsongross 10y ago
  I guess we'll see.
okreallywtf 10y ago
Or he is just doing his job and not worrying about who is going to be president? I don't know that much about him but I would like to think its possible for some people to be non partisan.