# A question about the Hilary Clinton email business. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2019, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229 "2019-02-26T06:36:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/41 "2019-02-26T20:33:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What you quoted wasn’t denigrating, it is a fact. The rules on electronic communications in the Department of State applied to her just as much as the GS-5 intern. It’s just that nobody is ever afraid to tell the intern that they have to follow the rules. Not saying you’re wrong, but do you have a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/42 "2019-02-26T20:56:17Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Not saying you’re wrong, but do you have a cite for that? > [@](#): > > 12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet > > a. It is the Departments general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. The Departments authorized telework solution(s) are designed in a manner that meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the Departments management control. There are some who would say that this doesn’t apply to the Secretary of State, as there had been a past practice of Secretaries using their own email addresses for work. I readily acknowledge that that was the practice, but I assert that it was in plain violation of the rules. I believe the IG report substantiated that. Plus, there’s no other section of the rules saying “Political appointees can disregard any rules in this book, or have their own private email addresses, that’s cool.” This is from a section of the Foreign Affairs Manual that deals with Sensitive But Unclassified information, which is defined in part as: > [@](#): > > (9) Inter or intra-agency communications, including emails, that form part of the internal deliberative processes of the U.S. Government, the disclosure of which could harm such processes. Many of Secretary Clinton’s emails would fall under that definition, as they would be deliberative in nature. As far as my speculation that Clinton’s staff were basically willing to look the other way on such rules because they didn’t want to deal with a cranky cabinet official, that’s my own opinion of what happened based on my reading of how she ended up with various electronic devices. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/43 "2019-02-26T21:03:30Z")
> [@nate](#): > > I still can’t get past the apparent fact that she was SoS for 6 years, sending 100s of thousands of e-mails, and no one said anything about her using her own e-mail server. If this was such a big deal, why didn’t someone bring it up then? Because a good number of other politicians did it also. Really no big deal. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/44 "2019-02-26T21:26:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There are some who would say that this doesn’t apply to the Secretary of State, as there had been a past practice of Secretaries using their own email addresses for work. I readily acknowledge that that was the practice, but I assert that it was in plain violation of the rules. I believe the IG report substantiated that. Plus, there’s no other section of the rules saying “Political appointees can disregard any rules in this book, or have their own private email addresses, that’s cool.” > > This is from a section of the Foreign Affairs Manual that deals with Sensitive But Unclassified information, which is defined in part as: Many of Secretary Clinton’s emails would fall under that definition, as they would be deliberative in nature. > > As far as my speculation that Clinton’s staff were basically willing to look the other way on such rules because they didn’t want to deal with a cranky cabinet official, that’s my own opinion of what happened based on my reading of how she ended up with various electronic devices. So they all broke the rules, but we only care about enforcing those rules now that it’s Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/45 "2019-02-26T21:40:35Z")
I think most of us will agree that the email affair of Clinton was a) seriously stupid on her part and showed a serious lack of caution or care and b) it was blown out of proportion by the Republican opposition in an attempt to hurt her election chances. There can be no blanket prohibition against government emails showing up on private email servers-otherwise no Gov’t employee could send an email to an outside address. Just using a private email address isn’t by itself against any law or regulation. For instance, as an employee I can email from my personal email account my supervisor when I am sick to request sick leave. The regulatory issue is that a Gov’t employee must take measures to make sure all their electronic communications, regardless of the location of the server, are stored and available for Gov’t retention and access. By far the easiest and best way for the any Gov’t employee to do that is to use a Gov’t email account. However, none of these policies will result in jail time. The worst that would happen is an employee might be fired if something blows up. The legal issue is whether classified information was put onto the server and by who. Regardless of who owns the server, no classified information is allowed on any unclassified server and that includes unclassified government servers at the State Dept. Doing that can certainly get a person in legal trouble. The question before the investigators was: did Clinton knowingly put classified information on an unclassified server? Note that requires 2 things, was the information classified and did Clinton realize it was classified when she put it on an unclassified email server? Since we know that the Government has determined that well over 100 emails contained what was determined after review to be classified, the first part is satisfied. Since she was never charged, we can assume that the far more difficult task of proving that she knew when she put the emails on her server that the information was classified was not proven. She was stupid to do what she did. No question. But proving that she knew the information was classified when she posted it is a high bar to cross. Could she have been charged with being criminally stupid? Perhaps. But according to the FBI who reviewed the emails, none\* of the emails that were found on her server contained classification markings. Since that is the case, proving that she knew it was classified when she posted it is going to be tough. The FBI decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove that. Some of the information was almost word for word from classified sources, but the Gov’t is going to have to find the person who gave her that information and prove that she was informed that it was classified. Apparently they couldn’t do that. \*there was one email marked classified on the server. However, that email was so marked in error and Clinton would have known that. She still should not have posted the email to her account, assuming she did. The email contained talking points for the secretary to discuss with a foreign leader. Up until it is given to the Secretary for the meeting, such information is routinely classified Confidential. But it is unclassified for the meeting. Obviously, that has to be the case since it is intended to be shared with uncleared people. The person who sent the Secretary the email forgot to remove the classification markings. I don’t think anyone will be going to jail over that mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/46 "2019-02-27T01:26:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So they all broke the rules, but we only care about enforcing those rules now that it’s Clinton. Well, now you have me totally confused if you are for or against senior government officials following the rules. I, for one, am in favor of all government officials following laws, regulations, and policies that they seek to apply to their subordinates. How do you stand on this principle, which I didn’t recognize was controversial? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/47 "2019-02-27T01:57:31Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Following the law to protect the security of the country is not nitpicky little technical details. She deliberately compromised the security of the country to make her life slightly easier and to keep things secret from the press. In the larger interest of getting her work done. We all cut corners. We just aren’t all under relentless disingenuous surveillance. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/48 "2019-02-27T05:30:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Because a good number of other politicians did it also. Really no big deal. Kind of a big deal, for all of them. Idk why politicians are special, any of them. If I forwarded a classified email from my gov email account with the army to my Gmail account, I’d probably have my clearance revoked, Which could very well cost me my position if it required a clearance. Even multiple FOUO docs could be enough, depending on what they were about and whether I printed them or accessed that account from a device that was at any time not either in my possession or within a government secured building. Most emails I’ve had in those categories, believe me, most people would think were no big deal too. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/49 "2019-02-27T05:48:58Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > As far as I can tell, there are some people who think she did this to dodge FOIA requests because of all the evil she was involved with. I very much doubt any relationship to FOIA concerns. Especially for someone , who, once she received subpoena, had her own lawyers and aids filter out and only send over what they deemed to be business related. Given that sort of discretion I doubt she couldn’t find a reason to include 100 percent of them in one of the these 10 categories below; Here are the 9 exemptions, the person or agency receiving the request has discretion here and docs needn’t be classified nor even FOUO to be exempted. Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security. Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law. Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged. Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the: 1. Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested) 2. Attorney-Work Product Privilege 3. Attorney-Client Privilege Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy. Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions. Exemption 9: Geological information on wells. Plus another test. . If a request for the information is received, it must be reviewed to see if it meets the FOIA dual test: (1) It fits into one of the nine FOIA exemption categories, and (2) There is a legitimate government purpose served by withholding the information. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/50 "2019-02-27T06:11:51Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Kind of a big deal, for all of them. Idk why politicians are special, any of them. > > If I forwarded a classified email from my gov email account with the army to my Gmail account, I’d probably have my clearance revoked, Which could very well cost me my position if it required a clearance. > … But they weren’t classified. You’d get a talking to, maybe a reprimand, and maybe retraining. And the point is that lots of politicians did this but we always only talk about Hillary. More GOP and Kremlin propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/51 "2019-02-27T06:23:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But they weren’t classified. You’d get a talking to, maybe a reprimand, and maybe retraining. > > And the point is that lots of politicians did this but we always only talk about Hillary. More GOP and Kremlin propaganda. Classified or not; > **[What are the Guidelines for Revoking a Security Clearance?](https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/08/23/guidelines-revoking-security-clearance/)** > > The guidelines for revoking a security clearance are based on the adjudicative criteria. Just because you've obtained a security clearance doesn't mean you can keep it if you violate the criteria. 1. K Even multiple FOUO would qualify And depending on how they felt that day maybe a few others Personally I’m offended by all of them. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/52 "2019-02-27T13:27:25Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Kind of a big deal, for all of them. Idk why politicians are special, any of them. > > If I forwarded a classified email from my gov email account with the army to my Gmail account, I’d probably have my clearance revoked, Which could very well cost me my position if it required a clearance. Point of clarification, Clinton isn’t accused of forwarding classified or FOUO emails to herself. If there was anything questionable in her emails, it’d only be there because someone _else_ sent it to her. Not excusing her role in creating the environment in which that was likely to happen, but the disclosure rules you’re referencing generally deal with whoever _disseminated_ the classified or official info, not inboxes that unwittingly received it. There’s NYT articles out on [nytimes.com](http://nytimes.com) that the DoD still considers classified, if I forwarded the body of those articles to your gmail account then there would technically be classified info your personal inbox, without you being culpable of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/53 "2019-02-27T13:59:05Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Given that sort of discretion I doubt she couldn’t find a reason to include 100 percent of them in one of the these 10 categories below… And yet, she and her attorneys did not hide all her emails, and they turned over ones that contained classified information. So your little conspiracy theory, innunendo, or whatever it is doesn’t match with the facts. > [@DrDeth](#): > > But they weren’t classified. You’d get a talking to, maybe a reprimand, and maybe retraining. If someone made a couple mistakes like that, sure, they would get a reprimand. But if it was anything more than that, of COURSE someone would lose their clearance. In fact, the State Department IG’s report on email use (which covered Albright through Clinton, and maybe Kerry, I don’t recall) specifically referenced the case of the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya who used a private email account for all his work. He was on the verge of disciplinary action, but resigned before that process was complete. > [@](#): > > And the point is that lots of politicians did this but we always only talk about Hillary. More GOP and Kremlin propaganda. Let’s be clear here: she clearly made a huge mistake. She has said so. But what she did wasn’t against the law, even though it was an unconscionably stupid thing to do. The reasons why this was made into such a big deal consisted purely of a mix of the following factors: 1) she did something stupid; 2) she was running for President as a Democrat; and 3) her name is Clinton. Even still, just because her predacessors also did stupid things, does not mean that she should not be criticized for her lapse in judgment, and the incredibly irresponsible behavior of her staff who wouldn’t lift a finger to correct an obvious and glaring problem. Let’s also acknowledge the obvious: had Clinton not done her stupid email setup, or had her staff had the guts to correct it, she would be President today. Forget Bernie, forget Wisconsin, forget anything else. She would be President today. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/54 "2019-02-27T14:21:33Z")
The email stuff also had the unfortunate, probably-unforseeable effect of **greatly** magnifying the salience of the DNC and Podesta email thefts. There were no scandals in the content of the stolen emails (other than what various conspiracy theorists made up about them), but the average voter just kept hearing the word “email” over and over again and connecting it back to Hillary’s email account and thinking they were stolen from her private server. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/55 "2019-02-27T18:19:33Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > There can be no blanket prohibition against government emails showing up on private email servers-otherwise no Gov’t employee could send an email to an outside address. Just using a private email address isn’t by itself against any law or regulation. For instance, as an employee I can email from my personal email account my supervisor when I am sick to request sick leave. The regulatory issue is that a Gov’t employee must take measures to make sure all their electronic communications, regardless of the location of the server, are stored and available for Gov’t retention and access. By far the easiest and best way for the any Gov’t employee to do that is to use a Gov’t email account. However, none of these policies will result in jail time. The worst that would happen is an employee might be fired if something blows up. > > The legal issue is whether classified information was put onto the server and by who. Regardless of who owns the server, no classified information is allowed on any unclassified server and that includes unclassified government servers at the State Dept. Doing that can certainly get a person in legal trouble. The question before the investigators was: did Clinton knowingly put classified information on an unclassified server? Note that requires 2 things, was the information classified and did Clinton realize it was classified when she put it on an unclassified email server? Since we know that the Government has determined that well over 100 emails contained what was determined after review to be classified, the first part is satisfied. Since she was never charged, we can assume that the far more difficult task of proving that she knew when she put the emails on her server that the information was classified was not proven. She was stupid to do what she did. No question. But proving that she knew the information was classified when she posted it is a high bar to cross. Could she have been charged with being criminally stupid? Perhaps. But according to the FBI who reviewed the emails, none\* of the emails that were found on her server contained classification markings. Since that is the case, proving that she knew it was classified when she posted it is going to be tough. The FBI decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove that. Some of the information was almost word for word from classified sources, but the Gov’t is going to have to find the person who gave her that information and prove that she was informed that it was classified. Apparently they couldn’t do that. > > \*there was one email marked classified on the server. However, that email was so marked in error and Clinton would have known that. She still should not have posted the email to her account, assuming she did. The email contained talking points for the secretary to discuss with a foreign leader. Up until it is given to the Secretary for the meeting, such information is routinely classified Confidential. But it is unclassified for the meeting. Obviously, that has to be the case since it is intended to be shared with uncleared people. The person who sent the Secretary the email forgot to remove the classification markings. I don’t think anyone will be going to jail over that mistake. This is only partially correct. It is the responsibility of everyone who receives classified information to protect it. By setting up a private server she failed in that responsibility. If she suspected that someone would send her classified information via email then setting up the private server was a crime. Since her job involved lots of classified information it beggars belief that she did not know she was going to discuss classified information via email. Further, according to the law classified information must have the level of classification on it at all times. Whoever put classified information in those emails without labeling it was committing a crime. It shows that Hillary and the people around her did not take the handling of classified information seriously. If anyone else had done that the minimum consequence would have been firing, losing security clearance, and declared ineligible for any new government job. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/56 "2019-02-27T18:27:30Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Further, according to the law classified information must have the level of classification on it at all times. Whoever put classified information in those emails without labeling it was committing a crime. Can you please link to the law that states this crime and the penalties for it? A law that specifically mentions “Not labeling classified information”. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/57 "2019-02-27T18:51:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Well, now you have me totally confused if you are for or against senior government officials following the rules. > > I, for one, am in favor of all government officials following laws, regulations, and policies that they seek to apply to their subordinates. How do you stand on this principle, which I didn’t recognize was controversial? I believe in consistency of enforcement. Every country/law enforcement agency/supervisory authority has laws they care about more than others; if a cop sees two people, one running a red light and the other slaughtering a playground of children with a chainsaw, they will go after the chainsaw dude every time. There are even old laws on almost every set of books that are never enforced at all, and when somebody does try to enforce them they get wiped away. So the notion that one has to be for rules or against them is puerile - one has to look at how the rules are perceived and enforced. Now, you can note that the notion that the boss is above the law is selective enforcement, and that’s correct, and it’s not as good as there being an explicit exception written or universal enforcement. However we’re all pretty used to the idea that there are different rules for bosses and peons, and as long as nobody complains everything’s fine. And if they do complain, if the complaint demands consistent enforcement for the sake of consistent enforcement, that’s also fine. But if the inconsistent enforcement is because you hate some people and only want the laws to apply to them that’s fucked up and wrong. If you make drug laws and only enforce them against black people that’s fucked up and racist. If you set up rules to hinder advancement and apply them only to women, that’s fucked up and sexist. And if you decide that the rules only apply to democrats, that’s fucked up and republican. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/58 "2019-02-27T20:17:07Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I believe in consistency of enforcement. Every country/law enforcement agency/supervisory authority has laws they care about more than others; if a cop sees two people, one running a red light and the other slaughtering a playground of children with a chainsaw, they will go after the chainsaw dude every time. There are even old laws on almost every set of books that are never enforced at all, and when somebody does try to enforce them they get wiped away. So the notion that one has to be for rules or against them is puerile - one has to look at how the rules are perceived and enforced. > > Now, you can note that the notion that the boss is above the law is selective enforcement, and that’s correct, and it’s not as good as there being an explicit exception written or universal enforcement. However we’re all pretty used to the idea that there are different rules for bosses and peons, and as long as nobody complains everything’s fine. And if they do complain, if the complaint demands consistent enforcement for the sake of consistent enforcement, that’s also fine. > > But if the inconsistent enforcement is because you hate some people and only want the laws to apply to them that’s fucked up and wrong. If you make drug laws and only enforce them against black people that’s fucked up and racist. If you set up rules to hinder advancement and apply them only to women, that’s fucked up and sexist. And if you decide that the rules only apply to democrats, that’s fucked up and republican. Do you oppose issuing of speeding tickets, because not every car can be ticketed? ETA: If Trump starts emailing classified info from a private server, based on where we stand WRT to the actions of Powell, Rice, and Clinton, should Trump be held to account for doing that, or not? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/59 "2019-02-27T21:19:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you oppose issuing of speeding tickets, because not every car can be ticketed? You’re not stupid enough to seriously think this is an answer to my position. > [@Ravenman](#): > > ETA: If Trump starts emailing classified info from a private server, based on where we stand WRT to the actions of Powell, Rice, and Clinton, should Trump be held to account for doing that, or not? You mean ACTUAL classified information, right? That HE is emailing? Based on the fact I that don’t think that Clinton did that, I’m not sure how the treatment of Clinton would have a bearing on his case. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229/60 "2019-02-27T21:31:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And yet, she and her attorneys did not hide all her emails, and they turned over ones that contained classified information. So your little conspiracy theory, innunendo, or whatever it is doesn’t match with the facts. > > If someone made a couple mistakes like that, sure, they would get a reprimand. But if it was anything more than that, of COURSE someone would lose their clearance. > > In fact, the State Department IG’s report on email use (which covered Albright through Clinton, and maybe Kerry, I don’t recall) specifically referenced the case of the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya who used a private email account for all his work. He was on the verge of disciplinary action, but resigned before that process was complete. > > Let’s be clear here: she clearly made a huge mistake. She has said so. But what she did wasn’t against the law, even though it was an unconscionably stupid thing to do. > > The reasons why this was made into such a big deal consisted purely of a mix of the following factors: 1) she did something stupid; 2) she was running for President as a Democrat; and 3) her name is Clinton. Even still, just because her predacessors also did stupid things, does not mean that she should not be criticized for her lapse in judgment, and the incredibly irresponsible behavior of her staff who wouldn’t lift a finger to correct an obvious and glaring problem. > > Let’s also acknowledge the obvious: had Clinton not done her stupid email setup, or had her staff had the guts to correct it, she would be President today. Forget Bernie, forget Wisconsin, forget anything else. She would be President today. They were not requested via FOIA nor even by the public, they were by subpoena, entirely different scenario. Which is why i said using a private server would have virtually zero advantage in avoiding FOIA. The advantage is already there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-the-hilary-clinton-email-business/830229.md?page=4)