# Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092 "2015-03-03T14:10:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/361 "2015-03-16T15:54:51Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I think that the President knew, but if he didn’t I can see no way that his immediate staff didn’t. And if they didn’t tell him, it’s his responsibility that they didn’t. And I keep saying that if I were a staff member, I wouldn’t be alarmed, because: 1. I could verify through other means that it really was Hillary; and 2. The last SoS did the same thing, so I’d think that’s just how pool was played at these high levels. I would no more bother the president with this than I’d bother the president with reports about how Hillary was only using one device instead of two, or Hillary was planning her daughter’s wedding using that device, or any other thing that struck me as trivial. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/362 "2015-03-16T16:03:57Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And I keep saying that if I were a staff member, I wouldn’t be alarmed, because: > > 1. I could verify through other means that it really was Hillary; and > 2. The last SoS did the same thing, so I’d think that’s just how pool was played at these high levels. > > I would no more bother the president with this than I’d bother the president with reports about how Hillary was only using one device instead of two, or Hillary was planning her daughter’s wedding using that device, or any other thing that struck me as trivial. I’ve heard that Hillary uses dijon mustard on hot dogs. The nerve! While I still think that it is inappropriate for a Secretary of State to use their own server for government business, the attempt to extend the level of the misjudgment so that Obama or Obama’s aides, or everyone in the federal government is somehow tainted with it is hilariously transparent. And it also dilutes what little power there is in the story. Talking about exactly how Obama uses his email program’s contact list is a loser of an argument. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/363 "2015-03-16T16:09:57Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The investigations are still on going. Yes, they are. How do you not realize that keeping them going, and in the news, is the _point_? > [@](#): > > Plus, you, and others, keep mentioning Benghazi. Us? 😃 Who’s been holding all those investigations for all these years? And which “news” source leads with it almost every night? > [@](#): > > Maybe people don’t understand how advertising, or how the Streisand effect, works? Maybe some don’t understand when it’s being done _to them._😉 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/364 "2015-03-16T16:10:06Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I’ve heard that Hillary uses dijon mustard on hot dogs. The nerve! > > While I still think that it is inappropriate for a Secretary of State to use their own server for government business, the attempt to extend the level of the misjudgment so that Obama or Obama’s aides, or everyone in the federal government is somehow tainted with it is hilariously transparent. And it also dilutes what little power there is in the story. Talking about exactly how Obama uses his email program’s contact list is a loser of an argument. I agree–as I said at the outset, I think this was poor judgment on Clinton’s part. One thing just occurred to me, however: a major problem with misuse of government email is when it’s used for personal purposes, or even (gasp) political purposes. If Clinton sent out an email about the 2012 election from a .gov address, what a stinking mess that’d be, and rightly so. When she has a personal server, that changes the issue. Of course she’s allowed to send out a political email on her own personal server. She’s not using government resources to do it. Problem averted. HOWEVER, there’s a case that some legitimate confusion is created between what she’s doing in her official capacity and what she’s doing in her unofficial capacity. If she sends a senator an email about the foreign policy implications of a particular item in a bill, is she doing so as SoS or as a Democratic politician? Does it change if that senator is up for election? Does it change if she sends it to a member of the House running for a seat in the senate? Does it change if she sends it to someone who doesn’t hold office but who is active in political circles? Does it change if that person is a major donor to Democrats? I’m not a fan of that sort of fuzziness, and I think that’s a good reason to have two different accounts. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/365 "2015-03-16T16:18:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m not a fan of that sort of fuzziness, and I think that’s a good reason to have two different accounts. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/366 "2015-03-16T17:26:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, they are. How do you not realize that keeping them going, and in the news, is the _point_? > > Us? 😃 Who’s been holding all those investigations for all these years? And which “news” source leads with it almost every night? > > Maybe some don’t understand when it’s being done _to them._😉 The point of an investigation is to gather information. Depending on what is uncovered, the investigation can lead to criminal, or civil, charges or the subject is cleared and the investigation is closed. The State Dept has not been very cooperative with the investigations. Hillary has not been very cooperative with the investigations. Demands that people stop asking questions hasn’t stopped people from asking questions. You can repeat the word “Benghazi” as often as you wish. That isn’t going to convince the investigators, or many of the voters, that the investigation should be stopped. And it isn’t going to answer any of the still unanswered questions, either. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/367 "2015-03-16T17:37:26Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > She should have known better. Tru dat. And the day I was given a jaywalking ticket, I should have known better as well. To me, the fact that anyone’s still talking about this just shows how little the Hillary haters have to throw at her. She should have known better, but it’s still pretty small potatoes. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/368 "2015-03-16T18:02:07Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The point of an investigation is to gather information. So no, you do _not_ know what the purpose of this constant stream of investigations really is. > [@](#): > > You can repeat the word “Benghazi” as often as you wish. And no, you do not know who’s actually doing that. > [@](#): > > That isn’t going to convince the investigators, or many of the voters, that the investigation should be stopped. Not the voters who wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton, no, nothing will convince you people of anything. Since you don’t know what the real purpose of the investigations is, as already established, then you don’t know they can’t be convinced > [@](#): > > And it isn’t going to answer any of the still unanswered questions, either. And you also don’t know why they keep getting asked, do you? Remarkable. Truly remarkable. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/369 "2015-03-16T18:04:27Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > And it isn’t going to answer any of the still unanswered questions, either. The only unanswered question for Republicans is, "How do we keep Hillary from being elected President in 2016?!? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2015, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/370 "2015-03-16T20:00:53Z")
Nominate her. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/371 "2015-03-18T13:00:19Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The only unanswered question for Republicans is, "How do we keep Hillary from being elected President in 2016?!? True, and also irrelevant. Clinton’s had enough scandals, real and fake, for anyone to figure out the difference. The fake ones are made up in the right-wing fever swamp. The real ones start out in the mainstream media. This one started out with the mainstream media. It’s real. How significant it is is up to the voters, and it doesn’t seem that significant to voters, although it does create some problems for Clinton’s marketing. She can’t credibly claim to be change, or particularly honest. Candidates who are well known and have lost before often try to repackage themselves. Clinton won’t be able to. All of her positives and negatives are well known and it’s unlikely that she can improve on them. Her approval numbers seem pretty good now, but chances are she’s going to revert to her normal numbers once the campaign gets rolling, which tend to be about 48-48 positive/negative. Democrats just need to figure out if that’s good enough and if new blood might not be better. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/372 "2015-03-18T18:26:17Z")
Yesterday, Jen Psaki answered the question about whether Hillary had signed a OF-109 form. One question asked, one question answered. The investigation continues. _state department: no record of sec hillary clinton signing separation agreement_ [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/7lQbBHXOfkY/hqdefault.jpg "State Department: No Record Of Sec. Hillary Clinton Signing Separation Agreement") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lQbBHXOfkY) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/373 "2015-03-18T18:32:59Z")
[quote=“doorhinge, post:372, topic:714092”] Yesterday, Jen Psaki answered the question about whether Hillary had signed a OF-109 form. One question asked, one question answered. The investigation continues. _state department: no record of sec hillary clinton signing separation agreement_ [/QUOTE] > [@Bricker](#): > > Quiz: what does the “OF” stand for in “OF-109?” So all the froth about Secretary Clinton’s multiple felonies for signing this form? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/374 "2015-03-18T19:16:01Z")
Keep digging! There’s bound to be a pony in there somewhere! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/375 "2015-03-18T19:22:44Z")
I feel very alone sometimes. Why is it such a standard approach to begin with, “I don’t like X,” and then follow to, “…and therefore pretty much every criticism of X is justified?” If this were a discussion of almost any Hillary preferred public policy, I’d be arguing against her. But in this case, she was accused of breaking the law, and that accusation was used to whip up indignation, and the indignation has continued even after the accusations about lawbreaking have slowly morphed into supposed concerns about her general wisdom. How does anyone think that’s a fair approach? Why is it acceptable to levy these tactics against her and then complain when similar half-truths are used against a favorite son from your ideological town? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/376 "2015-03-18T19:56:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So all the froth about Secretary Clinton’s multiple felonies for signing this form? As far as the signing of this particular form, it appears to be much ado about nothing. Now that the answer has been provided. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/377 "2015-03-18T19:57:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is it acceptable to levy these tactics against her and then complain when similar half-truths are used against a favorite son from your ideological town? You’re surprised that there’s a double standard on the SDMB? You must be new here. If people on the SDMB and elsewhere were as fair-minded as you are, this would be a better messageboard and a better country. But they’re not. And they are not gonna be. You know as well as I that exactly the same sort of thing is going to be done to whoever gets the Republican nomination, and the fact that you stuck up for Hilary is going to mean doodly-squat. A Christian is going to be martyred in ancient Rome. His fate is to be buried up to his neck in the sand, and gored to death by a wild bull. He is buried, the bull is loosed, and the bull charges. By a superhuman effort, the Christian avoids the horns, and lunges up and bites the bull in the nuts. The Emperor jumps from his seat and shakes his finger at the Christian. “None of that!” he shouts. “Fight fair!” Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/378 "2015-03-18T20:06:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You’re surprised that there’s a double standard on the SDMB? You must be new here. > > If people on the SDMB and elsewhere were as fair-minded as you are, this would be a better messageboard and a better country. But they’re not. And they are not gonna be. You know as well as I that exactly the same sort of thing is going to be done to whoever gets the Republican nomination, and the fact that you stuck up for Hilary is going to mean doodly-squat. > > A Christian is going to be martyred in ancient Rome. His fate is to be buried up to his neck in the sand, and gored to death by a wild bull. > > He is buried, the bull is loosed, and the bull charges. By a superhuman effort, the Christian avoids the horns, and lunges up and bites the bull in the nuts. > > The Emperor jumps from his seat and shakes his finger at the Christian. “None of that!” he shouts. > > “Fight fair!” > > Regards, > Shodan Aw, nuts to that. It might not mean doodly-squat to **you** , but it means more than doodly-squat to **Bricker**. That’s kind of what integrity is: doing the right thing even when it doesn’t lead to short- or long-term personal gain. For what it’s worth, it also means something to me. I pay attention to folks who show integrity and those who don’t, to those who value principles and those who don’t, and treat them accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/379 "2015-03-18T20:09:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I feel very alone sometimes. > > Why is it such a standard approach to begin with, “I don’t like X,” and then follow to, “…and therefore pretty much every criticism of X is justified?” > > If this were a discussion of almost any Hillary preferred public policy, I’d be arguing against her. > > But in this case, she was accused of breaking the law, and that accusation was used to whip up indignation, and the indignation has continued even after the accusations about lawbreaking have slowly morphed into supposed concerns about her general wisdom. How does anyone think that’s a fair approach? > > Why is it acceptable to levy these tactics against her and then complain when similar half-truths are used against a favorite son from your ideological town? Hillary isn’t a special snowflake. The same tactics have been used against Christie, Clinton, Obama, Bush, Palin, Darren Wilson, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. The best defense against half-truths is to ask questions and to demand answers. Non-answers lead to more speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/380 "2015-03-18T20:21:22Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > As far as the signing of this particular form, it appears to be much ado about nothing. > > Now that the answer has been provided. [Indeed](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/18/state-department-no-record-clinton-signing-separation-statement/?intcmp=latestnews), since neither Colin Powell and Condi Rice signed one of those forms, either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=20)