
House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server - monochromatic
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-panel-probes-web-rumor-on-clinton-emails
======
xenadu02
> "As a PST file or exported MSG files, this could be done though, yes? > The
> issue is that these emails involve the private email address of someone
> you'd recognize, and we're trying to replace it with a placeholder address
> as to not expose it."

From the way it reads it looks like he is asking how to bulk remove an email
address from the archived messages _so_ when they are turned over they don't
contain the redacted email address.

I assume it would be embarrassing and/or problematic to share the email
addresses of various ambassadors and other government officials in public
records. You could also read something nefarious into it if you want.

This whole fishing expedition is hilarious and transparently political. The
Bush administration ran private email servers to avoid FOIA requests, then
nuked millions of saved emails when his term was up to avoid handing them
over. I didn't see any huge circus or massive outcry about that.

The idea that we should be able to immediately read all the correspondence
written by any public official also seems silly... it just encourages public
officials not to use email. People are allowed to have private conversations.
A reasonable compromise might be a time limit... say emails are held sealed
for X years after leaving office, then made public?

~~~
danso
The removal of private email addresses should be left to the State Department
who was in charge of releasing those emails. In the emails released so far,
Clinton's actual address has been removed from the To: field (physically, as
in it was whited-out) as is at least one name from the From: field

[http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-
documents/pdfs...](http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-
documents/pdfs/C05797218.pdf)

But I could see this as a result of incompetency, that is, the IT person
didn't realize that it's not up to him to redact addresses, the State Dept.
could do it. I know that sounds naive but we're talking about an IT person who
posted this question on Reddit using an account easily connected to him, so,
incompetency is inherent in the scenario.

edit: Apparently, there is a Slashdot user named "StoneTear" who has been
posting since 2002 and has made reference about working in government and
knows about their data retention policies. So that mostly rules out the
possibility of IT-guy-is-just-the-Senator's-nephew-in-law-who-got-asked-
because-to-do-IT-because-no-one-else-was-around:

[https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/09/19/2239234/computer-
sp...](https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/09/19/2239234/computer-specialist-
who-deleted-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips)

~~~
mozumder
> The removal of private email addresses should be left to the State
> Department who was in charge of releasing those emails.

Only for her work email account.

This is her personal email account that they requested to release, but it
isn't under their control.

Employers aren't supposed to be able to control one's private email account.

~~~
generj
Yeah, a private email account which was used extensively for official
government business.

With no work email account ever setup.

It's a matter of law that any and all work related emails on a personal email
address are to be handed over for future FOIA requests, etc. upon leaving
office.

If I used my personal email address for all communication with my companies
clients for work, they'd demand all of those emails when I left the company.

~~~
mozumder
> If I used my personal email address for all communication with my companies
> clients for work, they'd demand all of those emails when I left the company.

But they wouldn't be able to get them, no matter how hard they demanded.

Personal email addresses exist. Companies have to deal with that fact.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _But they wouldn 't be able to get them, no matter how hard they demanded_

I work in securities. My work emails must be archived. If I send work email
from my personal email (a) that is potentially illegal and (b) I must promptly
turn them over to my archives. If I refuse b, I face civil and potentially
criminal censure.

Blows me away how finance has stricter controls than the people conducting
bombing raids.

~~~
snowwrestler
This is not a relevant analogy because it's not under dispute that Clinton
used her email address for personal conversations, and there is nothing in the
Reddit post or the Hill news story that indicates whether we're talking about
personal or official business emails.

If your employer tried to force Gmail to turn over to them all your emails
with your spouse and friends, no matter the subject or content, you and Google
would fight it. And rightly so.

The House GOP members of the Benghazi committee are trying their hardest to
get their hands on Clinton's personal emails, to dig for embarrassing messages
to release. They already have her official business emails; they have had them
for years. And they have openly admitted that the entire purpose of the
committee is to undercut her presidential campaign.

~~~
ars
> They already have her official business emails; they have had them for
> years.

No, they have the emails _she_ claims are official. Big difference.

And she has zero credibility here. Negative credibility even, if she claims
they have all the official emails you can be 100% sure they do not.

~~~
mozumder
And if they want more, they can always get a search warrant for them.

That would help the Republicans gain back some credibility if they did. Right
now everyone considers this a colossal waste of time, exemplary of Republican
waste.

Republicans are quickly finding that there are limits to their political
powers.

The public needs to be forceful in telling the House to stop wasting
government money on Hillary emails.

~~~
ars
> And if they want more, they can always get a search warrant for them.

How would that help? She deleted them.

> The public needs to be forceful in telling the House to stop wasting
> government money on Hillary emails.

No, they need to tell the House that Hillary should be indited, that she is
not above the rules.

~~~
mozumder
> How would that help? She deleted them.

Sucks for them, then. Perhaps the House Republicans should have been quicker
on their feet, instead of clowning around?

The public is in support of Clinton, and want House Republican members
impeached and jailed.

------
jimmywanger
The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her
campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns.

Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time.

The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the
mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of
muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tried to
cover up email indiscretions?

Most people do believe that where there's smoke, there's fire. And this
cluster of events can't be good.

~~~
discodave
> The actual facts aside

I happen to believe that facts are important in a Presidential race.

Essentially your response is repeating talking points of the Trump campaign...
which is OK, 1st amendment and all that but to pretend like you're making a
constructive addition to the discussion / debate is folly.

Right now America has a choice between Trump, a racist, mysoginist demagogue
who has never held a public office and Hillary Clinton. Hillary may have
issues but she is also possibly the most experienced presidential candidate of
the last couple of decades.

~~~
TillE
> the most experienced presidential candidate of the last couple of decades

George H. W. Bush was a two term vice president, director of the CIA, etc.

I've been following this election pretty closely for more than a year, and I
seriously couldn't tell you what Clinton's positive message is besides "I'm
experienced". _Nobody cares._ Americans don't elect technocratic planks of
wood. This is the worst, most inept presidental campaign I've ever seen. She's
very nearly losing to a joke candidate.

~~~
adamrezich
It's really interesting to hear you say that, actually, because from my
perspective, she had _two_ positive messages:

\- "I'm experienced"

\- "I'm a woman, and it's high time a woman became President"

It's interesting that her campaign has finally stopped beating us over the
head with the latter, at least; it was _insultingly_ sexist.

~~~
peu4000
It's insultingly sexist to suggest that 51% of the population should finally
have representation in the highest office in America?

~~~
devopsproject
If a man said that he deserved a job over a woman on the basis of gender, it
would be sexist (and wrong). The reverse is also true.

------
danso
The r/conspiracy thread where things unfolded:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/53fw9x/bleachbi...](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/53fw9x/bleachbit_i_may_be_facing_a_very_interesting/)

One of several archived copies of the r/exchangeserver thread, "Remove or
replace to/from address on archived emails?" (the user stonetear deleted his
account during the r/conspiracy thread):
[http://archive.is/FXcao](http://archive.is/FXcao)

~~~
mhomde
Just when you thought this election couldn't get any weirder... there's a
major scoop about Clinton on r/conspiracy

~~~
nostromo
Hillary attacking the Pepe the Frog meme was the point at which I had to pinch
myself to wake up.

------
protomyth
Regardless of your politics or beliefs of what happened, I think a simple bit
of advice is truth:

If you are going to run an e-mail server in difficult circumstances then hire
a System Administrator who does not need to post obviously problematic
questions to Reddit.

~~~
EpicEng
Under a freaking user name that can be easily traced back to them. I mean,
seriously?

~~~
imron
And this is why the NSA collecting all data on everyone should have people
worried. Sure, it's just pictures of your cat and 'my life is boring, they can
spy on me all they want because they won't find anything interesting"

And then 2 years later your post on an internet forums about your missing dog
helps tie you the destruction of evidence.

~~~
EpicEng
I mean, yeah, but first and foremost you should probably strive to avoid
committing felonies.

~~~
imron
I agree 100% with that too!

The point is that even if you are posting innocuous things, it builds up a
profile that can identify you in ways you do not expect. This example was for
something serious.

Who knows what the next example will be like.

------
bpchaps
I highly recommend that many others use FOIA to gather communication records
of their elected officials.

About a month ago I received this pdf [1] (1700+ pages of email records) of
Chicago's office of the mayor after about three months of resistance. Prior to
that, it took a year and a half and a law suit to receive one week's worth of
Chicago's mayor's logs [2] through Chicago's IT department. To my knowledge,
prior to this work, records in volume have been impossible to get due to
asinine rejections. The amount or resistance (and holy shit was there a lot)
led me to run several chains of FOIA requests to gather bulk communication
records.

Of note in the call records are many private investigator calls. I haven't had
much chance to go through the email records and could use some help if
anybody's interested.

[1]
[https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/oFwvr/fi-29853345-5f15-4...](https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/oFwvr/fi-29853345-5f15-4a34-9ba0-67ecf8c0d193/fv-3251eaf6-fb70-46d4-9f26-f85221c13317/DOIT%20--%20domain%20name%20log.pdf)
[2]
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTR...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTRN8n876KL8aXYYu5it8Lg0g8/edit)
(four, mostly unstructured sheets)

------
Mendenhall
What amazes me besides him using familiar handle is that even after the
investigation he left all those reddit posts up. Then he decides to try and
delete them now after they are found.

~~~
skrowl
What amazes me is that a reddit user found it but somehow all of the FBI
investigators didn't.

~~~
brianwawok
You are amazed a group of 100 million people knew something 6 guys in an
office did not?

~~~
WalterSear
100 million people faffing about vs 6 full time guys who are presumably
professionals in the field?

And really, it's not 100 million people. That's just the number of people on
the site. In actual fact, it's probably a handful of people at most.

~~~
umanwizard
100 million people (or a handful, whatever) who don't have to worry about Bill
Clinton and various other powerful figured pressuring them into compliance.

You can believe that, against all odds, Bill really did just talk to Loretta
Lynch about grandkids. Even so, the point was still made.

~~~
WalterSear
"Noice grandkids you got there. Wouldn't want anyfink to 'appen to em, would
we now?"

------
syphilis2
The US News and World Report article is also a nice primer on this issue.
[http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-
combetta...](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-
computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-
for-tips)

I have not seen this reported on by any major US news media. (FOX, CNN, MSNBC,
ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS) Other than The Hill, US News, various right-wing
sources, and VICE I don't see anyone writing about this. It reminds me of the
first hour or two after Hillary's episode at the 9/11 event where the only
major news source reporting was Fox News.

Is this something people are interested in? Is there an obligation to report
on this nationally?

~~~
mikeburrelljr
Fox News has now picked this up: "Clinton email wiper appears to have asked
online how to hide 'VIP' info"
[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/20/clinton-email-
wip...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/20/clinton-email-wiper-
appears-to-have-asked-online-how-to-hide-vip-info.html)

------
mark_l_watson
I am getting even unhappier with the democratic national committee ranking
members who did what they could to sabotage Sander's run for the nomination.
Just my opinion, but as a democrat I think Sanders would have such an easier
time winning the general election. I would like to see a major magazine do a
"public shaming" article on the leading DNC actors who acted unfairly and non-
ethically. I would like history to trash these people because they deserve it.

------
iamdave
This is interesting. I was up drinking beer with a friend until 5am this
morning talking about the very phenomenon of breaking news coming from social
media and sites such as Reddit. He pointed to the Boston bombing and Dallas
shooter situations as reasons why the press should "just ignore" social media;
his entire argument boiled down to 'bad data exists along side good data,
therefore throw it all out"

I didn't necessarily disagree that there are moments where we got it wrong,
for sure. I tried arguing that using those events as a point of reference for
insulating journalism a bit better was probably a good idea; you know "first
step to overcoming a problem is admitting you have one" and he was having none
of it. Maybe this story will do the trick.

Really curious to see where this goes taking some points from that debate.

~~~
adamrezich
The Boston Marathon bombing fiasco was the result of reddit trying to deduce
stuff in the real world based on photos and video and the like. This is reddit
trying to deduce information based on reddit posts, on reddit. I think that's
an important distinction.

~~~
meowface
It also definitely wasn't just reddit. Tons of people on 4chan, Twitter, and
various forums were all looking into that "suspect".

------
ksubedi
I got this from reddit but someone made a wordpress page with 4 years of his
account history :
[https://paulcombetta.wordpress.com](https://paulcombetta.wordpress.com)

~~~
harryf
There's enough personal information in there to confirm his identity - a
picture of him with that dog would already be enough.

------
CptJamesCook
"The Reddit message was sent on July 23, 2014, according to an archive of the
page saved by other users. The day before, the Benghazi Committee had reached
an agreement with the State Department on the production of related records"

------
DigitalSea
Even with proof, nothing will come of this. Sadly it seems the rules are
different for anyone in power to get away with questionable choices and
decisions. It has to be more than coincidental that Hillary Clinton has this
much controversy surrounding her, some might say it's just conspiracy theory
fodder, but let's be honest: she has obviously done some shady things, to the
point where they can't even be adequately covered up anymore.

I don't want Clinton or Trump to be the next POTUS. I think they're both
inadequate for the position.

------
carsongross
Reddit and the chans: the journalists we need, but not the ones we deserve.

~~~
puppetmaster3
Funny.

I wonder if corporate media will bring up this story.

------
gjolund
This is pretty huge. It establishes intent.

------
jlj
"Combetta appeared under subpoena in a committee hearing last week on the
alleged destruction of evidence, but both he and colleague Bill Thornton
exercised their Fifth Amendment right not to testify."

Actually it's the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination.

------
Normal_gaussian
Interesting.

Does anyone know if there is any form of signing the outlook data exports /
live datastore that would prevent easy external programmatic replacement?

------
alecco
The original HN post got flagged and removed from HN homepage.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12533757](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12533757)
250 points (more than this post at the moment)

~~~
Mao_Zedang
Be nice to see an explanation from our moderating overlords

~~~
dang
You mean your moderating servants? At the time, there were multiple posts of
the same story competing for attention, so a mod marked all but one as a dupe.
But then that surviving one got heavily flagged. We reduced them at one point
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12534542](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12534542))
but the flags kept coming.

I think what's going on here (and what I just told the other moderators) is
that this is one of those times when our standard practices around things like
dupes and downweights—e.g. for political controversies—don't apply. This
doesn't happen very often, perhaps once every couple weeks. In such cases the
community will is unmistakeable, the story will keep coming up until it gets
an airing, and our job is to let that happen.

I like it much better when we call these right from the beginning, but what
are the odds that an r/conspiracy Hillary investigation would turn into a
solid HN thread? Too small for the human eye, and no set of moderation rules
can operate at that fine a grain.

~~~
douche
This happens with every single story that touches on this subject. Over the
course of the summer it's happened time after time - the flag brigade gets
almost all of them.

After the flag-killed story today was reset, it still never showed up on the
main page, despite hundreds of votes, although it did show up on /classic.

~~~
dang
Sure; nearly all those stories are off topic for HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

I assume this one's different because of the Reddit connection.

~~~
Mao_Zedang
When content moderation rules like these are infrequently enforced they cant
be taken seriously.

~~~
dang
If this is 'infrequently' I'm not sure what we do all day!

Moderation consistency is impossible, because we can't come close to reading
everything here. We do our best.

------
peteretep

        > Citation needed if you're
        > going to "correct the record."
    

This is not Reddit, and it is not a place for accusing people of being paid
shills. Please desist.

~~~
mkopinsky
Where did he accuse anyone of that? All he asked for is a citation.

~~~
comex
Their comment is referencing Correct The Record, a pro-Clinton PAC which,
according to a popular but false Reddit rumor, employs commenters to
anonymously spread propaganda. See also:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/4xcwjb/what_i...](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/4xcwjb/what_is_correct_the_recordctr_rpolitics/)

Edit: At the time of this edit, three replies have asked for a citation on
"false", so I may as well put it here.

Barrier Breakers 2016, the subject of the original The Daily Beast article
that spread the rumor [1], is a real project that spreads messaging (call if
propaganda if you want) supporting Clinton. But that messaging is not
anonymous or covert. Here are some of their social media accounts:

Twitter:
[https://twitter.com/nobarriers2016](https://twitter.com/nobarriers2016)

Facebook:
[https://www.facebook.com/BarrierBreakers2016/](https://www.facebook.com/BarrierBreakers2016/)

YouTube: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMLy17PDQw_WSNoytoDX-
HA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMLy17PDQw_WSNoytoDX-HA)

Other CTR Twitter accounts (not 'Barrier Breakers'):

[https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord](https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord)

[https://twitter.com/CTR_DZ](https://twitter.com/CTR_DZ)

They post a lot of stuff - the @nobarriers2016 Twitter account has three posts
in the last hour. But the accounts are clearly marked as a project of Correct
the Record, and the glossy images they share are not even remotely pretending
to be grassroots.

According to their spokesperson, they do not have an additional covert
operation:

> “Barrier Breakers accounts are always identified as Correct the Record,”
> spokesperson Elizabeth Shappell said.

\-
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-
the-record-online-trolls/484847/)

That article is a good read in general and explains what they mean by "pushing
back":

> In an exchange on May 24, a Twitter user with a bio that reads “Conservative
> Republican. Trump SUPPORTER. Fox news viewer,” wrote: “Whenever CROOKED
> HILLARY gets a tough question she either bursts into that blood curdling
> laughing cackle or starts barking like a dog. #LIAR.” Correct the Record
> responded with #ImWithHer and a graphic of Clinton with text reading: “She’s
> the most vetted person on earth. And standing STRONGER than ever.”

(You can find the tweet in question by searching - the response was from the
@CTR_DZ account.)

Personally, I consider this approach fairly lame, in line with the brand
social media accounts that sometimes show up in my Twitter replies when I
complain about the brand. If I got a message from them, I doubt I would feel
especially encouraged or interested in resharing their images. But that's a
_far_ cry from being immoral, which I think employing anonymous commenters to
skew the public debate would be.

Of course, I can't present absolute proof that they are telling the truth
about not having an additional covert operation. But there is no evidence
whatsoever that they do have one, only baseless speculation about "paid
shills", of the sort that's been around forever (I remember when I used to
read Slashdot, closer to its prime, and it was Microsoft that supposedly
employed an army of them there), combined with a distorted understanding of a
real project.

[1] [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-
pac...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-
spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html)

~~~
monocasa
> but false

Any citation for that?

~~~
comex
I have edited my post to elaborate. [additional text so the dupe checker
doesn't hide this]

~~~
monocasa
It doesn't cost $6M to run a couple twitter feeds for a few months.
[https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00578997](https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00578997)

And she didn't say that Correct the Record doesn't have covert accounts, she
said the Barrier Breakers accounts are always marked.

------
takeda
And she still will be elected, because this year we had to have joke
candidates on both sides. I guess it's probably the best time to vote 3rd
party.

~~~
mindcrime
I honestly can't understand how anybody is considering voting for Clinton or
Trump. If this world was anything close to reasonable, Gary Johnson would win
in a landslide. _shrug_

~~~
losvedir
As a Gary Johnson supporter myself, I freely admit that he has some extreme
policies that can turn off a lot of voters. But what really frustrates me is
how many people I've heard from that _do_ prefer him but are afraid to vote
for him because of the spoiler effect.

I keep (wishful thinking) envisioning a scenario where he gets just enough
votes that all of a sudden everyone on the fence realizes that maybe he
_could_ win and joins in, and then he launches ahead

Wishful thinking and politics aside: there's a term for that phenomenon on the
tip of my tongue, but I can't quite place it. Can anyone think of one? Where
there's a slow growth until you get just enough of something and then it takes
off?

~~~
FragenAntworten
Critical mass?

~~~
losvedir
Aha, yeah, that was it! Thanks. soemoea's "tipping point" is close, too.

------
Dagwoodie
I have yet to see a single example of Trump's racism. It's an oft repeated
cliche that has yet to be demonstrated by anyone. As much of a "clown" as
trump might be, half of his labels are completely pulled out of thin air.

~~~
learc83
In 1989 he reportedly said "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only
kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes
every day."

He spent 5 years pushing the birther conspiracy even after Obama produced his
birth certificate. He also implied that Obama was a Muslim despite his claims
to the contrary.

He's implied several times that Obama sides with terrorists because of his
upbringing.

He said a judge was unqualified to preside over a Trump University lawsuit
because he was Mexican (turns out he was born in the US 60 years ago.) Paul
Ryan called it a "textbook definition of racism".

He started his campaign with this quote: "When Mexico sends its people,
they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending
you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing
those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime.
They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Despite the fact that
studies show first generation immigrants don't commit more crimes than native
born citizens.

He uses language like "My African American", "The Muslims", and "The
Hispanics" when talking about minority groups.

He refused to disavow David Duke on air until he "researched him more." He
said he didn't know who he was, but it turns out there are numerous example of
him mentioning David Duke in the past. He had primaries in southern states
coming up, so publicly disavowing David Duke would have likely hurt him.
Especially since David Duke has been campaigning for him. He did eventually
disavow him after the media made a huge deal about it.

He repeatedly refers to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas".

He said "They don’t look like Indians to me" about a Native American tribe
that ran a competing casino.

He said "Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” he mused. “It was
absolutely disgusting what he was doing." about a Black Lives matter protester
at his rally.

He said "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate,”
Trump said. “They love this country and they want this country to be great
again. They are passionate." when asked about supporters who beat a homeless
Latino man because "they all need to be deported."

~~~
douche
I recall him referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Fauxcahontas", but I may just
have that ingrained after her unsubstantiated claims keep resurfacing in
Massachusetts politics.

------
CamperBob2
Long-shot speculation: I wonder if the Democrats have decided that Hillary is
going to lose against Trump. Maybe they, and not the GOP, are throwing her
under a very fast bus.

Does anyone know what happens in the unlikely event that Clinton is placed
under indictment before the election? Does Kaine move up the ticket? Does the
DNC pick someone else entirely? What options do the electors have?

~~~
kevhito
I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if
the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem
as if it is 50/50 split. Then I checked 538.com [1]: they have her at 60%
chance of winning -- pretty strong lead and hardly a normal time to throw
someone under the bus -- but those graphs should be terrifying team Hillary.

[1] [http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-
forecast/](http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/)

~~~
skylan_q
Don't use that site for any insight. Nate Silver had Trump at a "1%" chance of
winning the GOP primaries. He then admitted that he got the call wrong because
he really didn't have any models and was just spitballing with friends. His
accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had
visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters
didn't.

~~~
jpfed
He did have models, and they correctly predicted Trump's victory. He chose to
disregard them. Then he wrote a mea culpa article explaining his mistake,
which he is unlikely to repeat.

------
throwaway2016b
Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary _embracing a KKK member_ that the
corrupt media refuses to mention. The kingmakers don't give a good goddamn
about racism, except as a convenient narrative for purges. The 21st century
equivalent of accusations of communism.

[https://i.sli.mg/FdqTAx.jpg](https://i.sli.mg/FdqTAx.jpg)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd)

“It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert
Byrd. He was not just its longest serving member, he was its heart and soul.
From my first day in the Senate, I sought out his guidance, and he was always
generous with his time and his wisdom.” -- Hillary Clinton

~~~
zimzam
By the end of his career Robert Byrd was a repentant, former KKK member.

Trump is being embraced by current, active KKK members.

It is obtuse to pretend there's no difference between the two.

From your own Wikipedia link: "In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that
he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a
jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I
thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23]
Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in
America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over
and over again. I can't erase what happened."[13]"

~~~
hueving
>Trump is being embraced by current, active KKK members.

Being embraced by and embracing are very different things. There are
statistically going to be child rapists that support both candidates, does
that make them both child rapists?

------
PKop
You're literally repeating clinton talking points. Do you think you're
contributing to the discussion amongst people that in no way believe any of
the garbage you just wrote?

~~~
dang
Please take care to remain civil when commenting here.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536216](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12536216)
and marked it off-topic.

