# 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:** 33
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/641 "2015-04-08T11:16:16Z")
We know they must have been evidence of wrongdoing because she destroyed them. _Duh._ ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/642 "2015-04-08T14:34:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > An investigating committee of the House of Representatives tried to obtain his papers, documents, files, and records…without probable cause…and were told no. There is no obligation for anyone to cooperate with an improper investigation. I know that your post is a week old, but I keeping seeing “probable cause” being thrown around. What gives you the idea that Congress requires “probable cause” to issue a subpoena? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/643 "2015-04-08T15:04:23Z")
What gives you the idea that a party doesn’t need a reason, they can just go fishing? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/644 "2015-04-08T15:04:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > How could anyone be prosecuted without evidence? Not sure what this has to do with Hillary, unless you’re _positively asserting_ (without any evidence :)) that Hillary destroyed evidence of wrongdoing. Hillary Clinton doesn’t engage in wrongdoing, at least not the illegal kind. However, she is rather fixated on avoiding anything embarrassing. She probably figures the content of those emails would do her more political damage than her lack of transparency. But no, I don’t suspect anything illegal. I just think that we’ll find that in 65,000 pages of emails she actually released, she managed to not say a single interesting thing. Then there’s the simple problem that she doesn’t get to decide what’s work related. Someone from the State Department should have done that work, not her personal lawyers. As is always the case with her, there’s nothing illegal, just a whole ton of shady. But hey, if you really, really hate government transparency, Clinton’s your candidate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/645 "2015-04-08T15:23:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As is always the case with her, there’s nothing illegal, just a whole ton of shady. As is always the case with _you_, you have no support for that repeated slander. I do understand your and your party’s extreme frustration over never being able to prove what you know in your hearts to be true, but maybe it’s time to align your views with the world of fact, hmm? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/646 "2015-04-08T15:25:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What gives you the idea that a party doesn’t need a reason, they can just go fishing? Wilkinson v. United States 365 U.S. 399 (1961) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/647 "2015-04-08T15:28:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What gives you the idea that a party doesn’t need a reason, they can just go fishing? A subpoena is not the same thing as a warrant, and does not require probable cause. It is only subject to a general “reasonableness” standard. ETA: **D’Anconia** , did you read your citation? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/648 "2015-04-08T15:30:20Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As is always the case with _you_, you have no support for that repeated slander. I do understand your and your party’s extreme frustration over never being able to prove what you know in your hearts to be true, but maybe it’s time to align your views with the world of fact, hmm? She’s a politician. Politicians don’t get the benefit of the doubt. When a politician does something non-transparent, it’s because they have something to hide. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/649 "2015-04-08T15:32:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A subpoena… is only subject to a general “reasonableness” standard. OK then, change the word and the question remains. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/650 "2015-04-08T15:35:22Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Wilkinson v. United States 365 U.S. 399 (1961) Inapplicable. The question was about the reason, or reasonableness, of subpoenas issued as part of partisan fishing trips. Remarkable that you have to resort to a McCarthyist ruling from the Red Scare to support your position, though. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/651 "2015-04-08T15:36:29Z")
Well, not really. The “reasonableness” standard is generally interpreted to mean there is some tenuous connection between the subpoena and some possible wrongdoing. It’s a lower standard than probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/652 "2015-04-08T15:37:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > She’s a politician. Politicians don’t get the benefit of the doubt. Then why single her out? Or even bring up the “point”, such as it is? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/653 "2015-04-08T15:40:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, not really. The “reasonableness” standard is generally interpreted to mean there is some tenuous connection between the subpoena and some possible wrongdoing. It’s a lower standard than probable cause. But there still has to be something, which is the point. A partisan fishing trip does not have even a tenuous connection to possible wrongdoing, except via the “logic” that someone named Clinton must have done _something_. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/654 "2015-04-08T15:42:19Z")
Um, she used a personal email account and decided which emails the State Department could keep. Do I get to decide which records the IRS has access to, and they have to assume I fully complied? She could have cleared all this up simply by having a government official go through her emails and determine which were personal and which were official. I wonder why she didn’t do that? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/655 "2015-04-08T15:44:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Then why single her out? Or even bring up the “point”, such as it is? Because INOKIADDI. **adaher** ’s posts make much more sense if you assume that he’s started from the standpoint of Obama/Clinton/some other Democrat is incompetent/shady/wrong and then he’s twisted reality into pretzels to support that view. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/656 "2015-04-08T15:45:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A subpoena is not the same thing as a warrant, and does not require probable cause. It is only subject to a general “reasonableness” standard. > > ETA: **D’Anconia** , did you read your citation? These are the elements required for a legally sufficient congressional subpoena: 1 .The committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber 1. The investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress 2. The specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation > **[Contempt of Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas)** > > Contempt of Congress is the misdemeanor act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. senator or U.S. representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents. > In the late 1790s, declaring cont... ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/657 "2015-04-08T15:46:33Z")
I think it’s you who are twisting yourself into a pretzel. The majority view, in the press and in the polls, is that this was inappropriate. As much fun as I have trying to convince liberals to step out of their bubble, I actually don’t need to convince anyone. Most people are already convinced. It’s Hillary and her helpful SDMB surrogates who are going to have to persuade people. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/658 "2015-04-08T15:53:32Z")
Not perzackly. He merely wants to ensure that the business of diplomacy be as transparent as possible. Clearly, the business of diplomacy would be much more effective if, say, Hillary’s opinions that the French President was a feckless but harmless old poofter who reeked of elderberries were publicly known. Or if she thought that Netanyahu was a bloodthirsty warmonger negotiating with Palistinians who didn’t have the good sense God gave a goose. Such transparency could have nothing but a positive effect of refreshing candor, especially when you consider how casual world leaders are about their personal dignity. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/659 "2015-04-08T15:56:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …Most people are already convinced. It’s Hillary and her helpful SDMB surrogates who are going to have to persuade people. Ah, yes. You are referring to the storm of outrage and fury sweeping the nation like mildfire? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/660 "2015-04-08T16:00:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Now you’re going to want a Congressional investigation into that too, right? You’re the one who keeps bringing Vince Foster into the _Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account_ thread. If YOU wish to have a Congressional committee investigate Foster’s emails, you’ll need to contact one, or all, of your three representatives in the U.S. Congress. I suspect that you’re simply trying to derail any conversation about Ol’ Hillary’s non-transparency. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=34)