Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Please correct me if I’m wrong:

She bypassed the requirement to communicate with all her contacts through secure and auditable channels (things people accuse the Trump admin of now doing), including foreign diplomats, by giving them her private email, which was effectively an email server stored under her desk, in simple SMTP, not SMTPS, which means all hostile entities could hack into it. When caught, she deleted the 19,000 emails and wasn’t sued for destruction of evidence.

That “all” of your legal experts (all 100% of them) found that perfectly legal is non sequitur: As a Secretary of State, practically her whole life can be used as ransom to make her do things contrary to state interests; and as a Secretary of State, she’s even responsible for making her subordinates set up the security rules to make it physically impossible to do what she did, if not legally impossible. She should not only have known, but she should have set up the rules for others.

Sounds like 100% of your legal experts may have been accessory to a scheme. Maybe she abided by the letter of the law but not the spirit, maybe the law has a hole, maybe everyone is lying because they’re afraid saying she cheated would benefit Trump, maybe anything else.

I’m genuinely interested in understanding if the story was wrong; But I’m not interested in understanding whether your take on the low importance of just a few emails from just a basic secretary, “nah don’t worry it’s just emails with her friends, she can have a private life”. No she can’t?



> No she can’t?

Why in the world would she be generally obligated to provide her personal/private emails to the government or public? It seems bizarre to suggest otherwise.


Because she’s at a position where she can be blackmailed and is holding a lot of the US secrets. There is no privacy when you run for high public positions.

“Sir you received a suitcase full of banknotes!

— That’s my private life!”

—said no honest person ever.


You're demanding a standard of radical transparency for government officials that isn't supported by the law and has never been applied before or since.

It seems to be based on a presumption of guilt, which is a pretty severe departure from common principles of law and justice.

If you're sincere, I suppose you've been demanding that current members of the executive in leadership positions make all their personal communications public too?

The laws around this all generally exempt personal communications. You're Presuming people guilty is also not grounded in law.


Assuming I drop all pretense of wanting elected official to be auditable by “We the People”,

They complain about government officials using Telegram or Signal to communicate. Do you agree that they argue on the same line as me, just opposite clan, dismissing their own faults and pointing at others like it’s never been done before?


To communicate about classified information. That is the key distinction.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: