# FBI not recommending charges against Clinton **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 5, 2016, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125 "2016-07-05T15:20:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/241 "2016-07-08T03:11:37Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > Who feels comfortable letting Clinton handle executive level intelligence, where she’s sure to get more of it and it’s sure to be more sensitive? Only the Hillary haters. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/242 "2016-07-08T03:16:26Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > You say that as though being \*Secretary of State \*is some kind of tee-ball league. Hrm? It’s less than presidential level in many regards, doesn’t make it “tee-ball.” ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/243 "2016-07-08T03:19:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, Comey is one. And the fact that many will keep eyes on her in the opposition makes her very unlikely to have the same issue again. I agree. I believe the burned finger will discourage her from touching the hot stove again. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/244 "2016-07-08T03:41:10Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > Who feels comfortable letting Clinton handle executive level intelligence, where she’s sure to get more of it and it’s sure to be more sensitive? Especially in the White House where she’ll be surrounded by the best security staff in the world. Or on Air Force One where nothing isn’t way over secure. Possibly the presidential limo which is also secure beyond belief. Yeah. We’re screwed. :rolleyes: Actually, I’m pretty comfortable letting her have it. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/245 "2016-07-08T03:45:27Z")
Given Hillarys status as a presidential candidate, it would have taken a lot for the FBI to press charges. Dwayne Wade can get away with fouls that a 3rd-string basketball player cannot. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/246 "2016-07-08T03:56:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What this report should debunk pretty thoroughly is this idea that people are just out to get Clinton and that she’s a generally honest politician. Pretty much everything she said about her private account was a lie and Comey refuted them all, one by one. > > At this point there can be no doubt that she’s a habitual liar and that her own behavior is what leads to scandal. Actually, now that more information has come out, it seems that the emails that she sent and received from her server fell into three categories: 1. Not classified at the time 2. Classified but not marked as such 3. Marked classified in an obscure and non-standard way It seems very likely Clinton fully believed her statement. She may have been incorrect, but probably didn’t lie. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/247 "2016-07-08T04:33:48Z")
If so, she’s an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/248 "2016-07-08T05:17:17Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > Who feels comfortable letting Clinton handle executive level intelligence, where she’s sure to get more of it and it’s sure to be more sensitive? Well, she’ll then be able to get the secure device she requested: [http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-clinton-asked-nsa-for-secure-phone-for-email-when-she-first-took-office-was-rejected/25100/](http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-clinton-asked-nsa-for-secure-phone-for-email-when-she-first-took-office-was-rejected/25100/) _One day after the FBI Director criticized Hillary Clinton for her use of email while Secretary of State, even as he made clear that no charges would be appropriate, it’s now coming to light that Clinton actually went to great effort to obtain more secure email devices but was turned down by other agencies. Weeks after being sworn in at State, she asked the NSA for a secure smartphone upon which she could conducted her email, but the request was repeatedly denied._ ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/249 "2016-07-08T05:20:07Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If so, she’s an idiot. Oh, do elaborate. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/250 "2016-07-08T05:21:01Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > Oh, do elaborate. Worst username/content conflict ever. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/251 "2016-07-08T13:13:34Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > Actually, now that more information has come out, it seems that the emails that she sent and received from her server fell into three categories: > > 1. Not classified at the time > 2. Classified but not marked as such > 3. Marked classified in an obscure and non-standard way > > It seems very likely Clinton fully believed her statement. She may have been incorrect, but probably didn’t lie. Tell us about #3… obscure and non-standard markings defeat the purpose. What kind of training do the highest level people get for identifying classified info? BONUS QUESTION… I think I’ve asked before but am trying to limit exposure to the subject so may not have seen any answers: Wouldn’t the Secretary of State expect that he/she would actually originate classified info such that using personal communication devices/systems for official business be less than prudent? ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/252 "2016-07-08T13:24:00Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > Who feels comfortable letting Clinton handle executive level intelligence, where she’s sure to get more of it and it’s sure to be more sensitive? No problem with it here. If she does go with a personal server again, I figure the White House has a pretty secure basement. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/253 "2016-07-08T15:11:22Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Tell us about #3… obscure and non-standard markings defeat the purpose. I’m not an expert, but I watched the portion of the hearing where this was discussed: apparently the symbol “(C)” marks confidential information. Apparently, if any information is marked (C), it has to be indicated so in the header (e.g., the subject line of the email). In the cases here, the (C) symbol wasn’t put in the header, and only appeared in the body of the email, where it could be overlooked. That apparently happened 3 times. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/254 "2016-07-08T15:40:15Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Tell us about #3… obscure and non-standard markings defeat the purpose. > > What kind of training do the highest level people get for identifying classified info? > > BONUS QUESTION… I think I’ve asked before but am trying to limit exposure to the subject so may not have seen any answers: Wouldn’t the Secretary of State expect that he/she would actually originate classified info such that using personal communication devices/systems for official business be less than prudent? I suspect that when she sent classified information, she had classified information sent to her in a thread - apparently improperly marked - then forwarded or responded that email without apparently noticing what was apparently a rather easily missed classification marking in the body of the text. And frankly, if any executive I’ve ever worked for reads the entire body of every email they get, and doesn’t just forward 80% of them on to a delegate with “look into this” or “take care of this” - I’d eat my hat. I don’t think she originated sending classified information. As in “hey, Brian, can you follow up on my discussion with the King of Jordan where we discussed (insert classified information). I promised to see if we could get him the details on (classified information). You know, never mind, I’ll just forward the King of Jordan those classified documents myself.” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/255 "2016-07-08T15:49:59Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I don’t think she originated sending classified information. As in “hey, Brian, can you follow up on my discussion with the King of Jordan where we discussed (insert classified information). I promised to see if we could get him the details on (classified information). You know, never mind, I’ll just forward the King of Jordan those classified documents myself.” Actually, I think the FBI Director mentioned that she did in at least one case originate an email containing top secret information, so that’s not good. Though it was (my wild guess) probably a discussion of CIA drone strikes, which are publicly reported anyway, but considered top secret information because reasons. Also, the Director made it clear that she never sent any secret attachments, just emails containing discussions of confidential information. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/256 "2016-07-08T16:01:48Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I’m not an expert, but I watched the portion of the hearing where this was discussed: apparently the symbol “(C)” marks confidential information. Apparently, if any information is marked (C), it has to be indicated so in the header (e.g., the subject line of the email). In the cases here, the (C) symbol wasn’t put in the header, and only appeared in the body of the email, where it could be overlooked. That apparently happened 3 times. IIRC it’s even more ambiguous than that – there’s supposed to be a full CLASSIFIED/CONFIDENTIAL mark/header, not just a (C). The (C) designation is intended to be used as a “portion marking,” meaning that it’s used in a larger document to indicate the confidential nature of (for example) the next paragraph or section (or whatever segment they’re talking about). Also, note that “confidential” is the lowest level on the “classified” scale. The 3 emails with the (C) shortcut didn’t use the proper header, and the (C) was apparently used lower in the email chain (and apparently with several earlier email replies copied above it, not being trimmed by those who kept forwarding it) by the time it got to Clinton. And actually, [the State Department is now saying that two of those emails were likely wrongly marked (C) in the first place](http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/). From that article, referring to Comey yesterday having said that three emails bore the “confidential” portion designation: > [@](#): > > But later in the hearing, Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman asked Comey if he knew that the State Department had said that the emails were marked classified in error. Comey replied, “No.” > > Likewise, Rep. Matt Cartwright, also a Democrat, asked Comey if the emails were properly classified, and Comey said they were not. (Executive Order 13526 spells out how documents should be properly classified, including a header on the document clearly identifying the email as classified as “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret.”) > > Cartwright asked if Clinton could have missed the improper markings. Comey said that that was possible. So we’re down to one email, out of 30,000. I’m not saying that’s acceptable, but I’m willing to bet it’s not unique, either. How many of those thousands of emails deleted by Cheney, or never turned over at all by Powell or Rice, were similarly designated? We’ll never know. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/257 "2016-07-08T16:13:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Our ruling > > Clinton said, regarding her State Department email practices, “my predecessors did the same thing.” > > This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell. Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did. > > We rate this claim Mostly False. > **[Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/)** > > Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to exclusively use private email to conduct State Department busine ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/258 "2016-07-08T16:22:42Z")
Not too sure the difference between having an AOL account and having a personal server is enough to make this claim “mostly false”, but whatever. Points have to be scored, right? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/259 "2016-07-08T16:28:41Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Not too sure the difference between having an AOL account and having a personal server is enough to make this claim “mostly false”, but whatever. Points have to be scored, right? 🙂 Comey did say the GMail has better security than Hillary’s server. AOL, on the other hand… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125/260 "2016-07-08T16:32:49Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Not too sure the difference between having an AOL account and having a personal server is enough to make this claim “mostly false”, but whatever. Points have to be scored, right? 🙂 At least you’re aware of your own ignorance on the subject. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-not-recommending-charges-against-clinton/759125.md?page=14)