# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/101 "2015-03-04T17:31:05Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It may have worked that way with the “Google as a backup” configuration they did first, but their subsequent solution was MX Logic (now McAfee Saas), which provides a whole range of services involving spam, phishing, and malware filtering and a lot more. That would have to use MX redirect to interpose the Saas servers in front of the target server. It also sounds like the service can filter outbound mail, too, and optionally provide “service continuity” in the event of an outage, so if thus subscribed they would effectively be running a parallel mail server. As yet another option, Saas also provides archival storage. It’s not clear just what services Hilary subscribed to, though. If she only used them for security filtering then you’re still correct that this wouldn’t provide archival backup. Even if she used it only for inbound and outbound filtering, that raises a couple of questions. The content has to be inspected by the filtering service. So, it has to be present in clear text at some point in the path to enable inspection. What does the service do with that content? Does it retain it somewhere? Who has access to it? Is the service FISMA and ITAR compliant? How does it handle encrypted email, assuming Clinton was even using encryption? Does it not inspect them, or does it somehow decrypt for inspection before passing it on? If it has been common practice for Cabinet level officials to have their own email servers, that’s crappy practice. Even without a legal requirement, someone should have said, “You know, I think this practice is a bad idea and I’m going to set a new precedent for security and transparency.” I wish Clinton had been that person. I like to hope that our leaders occasionally raise the bar before being forced to by law. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/102 "2015-03-04T17:37:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about you just remember this conversation? Oh the lament of the Straight Dope conservative! For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground And tell sad stories of the death of Reagan ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/103 "2015-03-04T18:00:30Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > … this is a tempest in a teapot unless someone assumes something malicious on Clinton’s part. She should have used the government’s infrastructure–Caesar’s wife, and all that–but the breach seems one of form rather than substance. > [@Bayard](#): > > … If it has been common practice for Cabinet level officials to have their own email servers, that’s crappy practice. Even without a legal requirement, someone should have said, “You know, I think this practice is a bad idea and I’m going to set a new precedent for security and transparency.” I wish Clinton had been that person. I like to hope that our leaders occasionally raise the bar before being forced to by law. Well said, and I agree with both of those statements. And, as **Bricker** previously said, when there was a requirement to produce pertinent emails, Hilary was able to do so, the IRS was not. Hilary ran the email service competently – many others may not have (that other ranking intellectual, Sarah Palin, apparently considered Yahoo to be the last word in email sophistication and security). I have no doubt that Hilary set up her own email for self-serving reasons of greater control, and I agree she should have used the official system. But she didn’t do anything illegal or even unethical, either in setting it up or in the subsequent response to requests for email records, so the whole thing is indeed a tempest in a teapot. I’m sure Fox News is all over it. ---
**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:** [March 4, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/104 "2015-03-04T18:05:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, sure…until the next time I defend a Republican and commentators archly suggest it’s an obvious choice and I would’t do the same for a Democrat, with this example quickly relegated to the convenient amnesia bin. A cynic might take the view that you are defending a Democrat here because it’s not going to go anywhere, and thereby insulating yourself from future accusations of partisanship at no cost to yourself. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/105 "2015-03-04T18:23:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems that the person accusing Mrs. Clinton of wrongdoing should shoulder the burden of proof. It seems that public officials shoulder the burden of doing things in the correct and proper way\*. As soon as the public official departs from the correct and proper way, it raises questions as to why that public official decided to do things in an incorrect and improper way. Using personal email for government business is not right nor proper. Additionally, the simple way to make all this sort of shit go away is to do it right. About the email server, the proper way to government business is by using government resources. The idea that her own server is somehow acceptable for doing government business is totally fucking ludicrous. What auditing procedures are in place? What security procedures? What backup plan? Does the system meet FISMA standards? Who audits the system to ensure data isn’t lost or removed? How do we know it hasn’t been hacked? Nobody fucking knows. The government has a bad enough record in this area yet Clinton doing this at home is supposed to be acceptable? What about the legal ramifications? What is there is a subpoena for the SecState emails? According to the linked article: > [@](#): > > Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails So, this is even worse. Not only is she doing government business on private systems, the systems may have different legal standards applied. I am a network infrastructure professional and the idea that Clinton ran government business from her personal email server is so absolutely fucked that I am baffled that _anyone_ would think this is a good idea or acceptable. This isn’t specifically about Clinton, other than she is the one doing it in this case. The issue is that public officials need to use the correct resources to do their jobs. Personal email is not the correct resource to do government business, whether it is Clinton, Bush or the local post master. If you are a government official doing government business you need to use government resources. Slee \*A note, I never accused Clinton of any wrong doing other than not using the proper email for government business. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/106 "2015-03-04T18:37:55Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I am a network infrastructure professional and the idea that Clinton ran government business from her personal email server is so absolutely fucked that I am baffled that _anyone_ would think this is a good idea or acceptable. Yeah, I’m an incident response and forensics guy. I’m also having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that this has been going on for years. It’s just…wrong on every level. Like so many objectionable things, though, it appears to have been perfectly legal. So they have that going for them. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/107 "2015-03-04T18:39:27Z")
[Al Jazeera America is reporting](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/3/govt-cybersecurity-source-clintons-office-warned-private-email-use.html) that Clinton’s people were warned about security concerns but that the warning fell on deaf ears. > [@](#): > > State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the government’s fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the department’s cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday. > … > “We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.” It is an unnamed source, but if true it takes away the blind ignorance defense. That certainly should disqualify someone from her entourage from a job should she be elected. ---
**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:** [March 4, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/108 "2015-03-04T18:52:40Z")
Er, why? The State Department has been hacked. Clinton, as far as I can tell, has not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/109 "2015-03-04T19:23:23Z")
[Simon Maloy writes:](http://www.salon.com/2015/03/04/the_clinton_gray_area_sitting_in_between_a_scandal_and_a_non_story/) > [@](#): > > The Clinton email story is powered in part by the facts surrounding it, but it also gets a substantial boost from existing and insoluble preconceptions about Hillary specifically and the Clinton machine in general – they’re secretive, Machiavellian, ruthless, and generally willing to do whatever it takes to secure power and advantage. This is, in horrible pundit vernacular, the “narrative” about Hillary, and the mere fact of its existence was cited by Times reporter Michael Schmidt as a justification for writing the story. “There’ve been questions about the Clintons over the years, about their transparency and secrecy, and this feeds into [the] narrative,” he said on Morning Joe. > > There’s a maddening instinct among pundits and reporters to see these qualities as somehow uniquely Clintonesque. Part of being a high-level politician is finding ways to thwart transparency and assert control over what bits of information are made public. Jeb Bush is being lauded for his decision to release a trove of emails from his time in office, but like Clinton he used a personal email address, and when he left office he hand-picked which messages would be turned over to the government archives. The problem is universal and thwarts most efforts to fix it. It generally only comes back to bite politicians when they pledge to hold themselves to higher standards (Barack Obama, for example) or, like Clinton, they’re locked in constant battle with an existing media narrative. > > Pundits also tend to view the Clinton narrative as the most significant thing about Hillary. This email flap is precisely the type of story that pundits relish because it has little to do with policy and is basically an invitation for them to vent some spleen and cluck their tongues because “there go the Clintons again.” National Journal’s Ron Fournier wrote a column questioning whether Hillary should be president because, with the Clinton Foundation and email stories, “we’ve had sleazy and stupid—and, now, with these emails, suspicious.” I didn’t think Mitt Romney would be a bad president because he refused to release his tax returns; I thought he would be a bad president because he wanted to cut spending on social programs to finance a tax cut for the rich. In that same way, Hillary’s email practices are interesting and problematic, but they don’t say a whole lot about what she’d do to reduce income inequality or prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/110 "2015-03-04T19:51:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A cynic might take the view that you are defending a Democrat here because it’s not going to go anywhere, and thereby insulating yourself from future accusations of partisanship at no cost to yourself. 😉 Except that it’s generating enough commentary that I could easily ride the other side: [House committee to subpoena e-mails from Clinton’s personal account](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-committee-to-subpoena-clintons-private-emails/2015/03/04/b4cec61c-c29b-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html) [The Hillary Clinton e-mail story just keeps getting worse for her](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/04/the-hillary-clinton-email-story-just-keeps-getting-worse-for-her/) [Jeb Bush Calls on Clinton To Release All Her E-mails / The revelation is an opportunity for Bush to contrast himself with Clinton on the issue of transparency.](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/jeb-bush-s-team-calls-on-clinton-to-release-all-her-e-mails) etc etc I agree it’s not going to cause her to withdraw her name from nomination, no matter what, but I don’t agree it’s self evident that the issue has no legs at all. The issue has legs, because commentators are willing to blur the distinction between current rules and rules as they existed at the time, and because even mildly partisan typical Democratic supporters can be moved to agree that she shouldn’t have made the choice to use private mail. I have explained why i believe those concerns are misplaced, but that doesn’t mean I agree they are non-existant. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/111 "2015-03-04T20:38:46Z")
So which committee is subpoenaing (sp?) the Clinton emails? Hmmm: > [@](#): > > The House Select Committee on Benghazi, which first discovered Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail… Wait. No way! Never in a million years would I have seen this coming! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/112 "2015-03-04T20:46:30Z")
If a Republican investigation into a real estate deal could evolve years later into investigating a blowjob, no, you should have had no problem seeing this coming. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/113 "2015-03-04T20:50:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is no instance of any mail that cannot be retrieved from her system. Is it your view that her system is subject to a FOIA request? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/114 "2015-03-04T21:10:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, your concern is your own conc… um, your own issue. I’m of the opinion that the law expresses the will of the people of the United States. In this case, Secretary Clinton, as head of her agency, was responsible for creating and applying sufficient standards for records retention. (It’s true that subsequent to her time in office, a more stringent law was proposed and passed). To paraphrase a Nixon quote, then, if the Secretary does it, it’s not a crime. Ah, but my issue is that circumstances are such so as to make the potential for a crime - or, at least, a significant break with policy - possible. If Clinton never uses her server nefariously, all to the good; but having a source of such data in place where she and she alone (or, hey, Bill and Chelsea, I guess) has immediate access to it has greater potential to my mind for hinkiness. I happily admit that hinkiness is not a criminal charge. > [@](#): > > On the contrary – it’s INconvenient. In other words, it’s not to my benefit. It isn’t to your benefit to know whether or not my supposed views are in accordance with any previously declared views? I would have said having a point of data as to my honesty was something of use. You seem to be imputing some worth into your presumption of bias on the part of your hypothetical arch accusers. Is it only because of the negative result? Is only knowledge of dishonesty worthy of attention? That aside, though, to tell you the truth I don’t even remember myself whether I’ve expressed views on this kind of issue before. I really wouldn’t expect you to do so. It seems strange to me that you seem to be assuming that the hypothetical people who would try to put your feet to the fire if this were a Republican are, cough cough, “forgetting”, cough cough, and not… just honestly forgetting. Or haven’t read this thread in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/115 "2015-03-04T21:13:43Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > Yeah, I’m an incident response and forensics guy. I’m also having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that this has been going on for years. It’s just…wrong on every level. Like so many objectionable things, though, it appears to have been perfectly legal. So they have that going for them. It’s a technology issue. I have such a low standard for the government and politicians as far as comprehension of and good use of technology that I would not be surprised if it was revealed they were leaving cheese out to feed the mice. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/116 "2015-03-04T21:25:31Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Is it your view that her system is subject to a FOIA request? Not directly, but the government is. So the government would have the authority to ask for pertinent data from the time that she was a government official. As indeed they did, and she complied. It complicates the process, and she should not have run her own system … all those things have already been acknowledged. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/117 "2015-03-04T22:04:26Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So the government would have the authority to ask for pertinent data from the time that she was a government official. 😕 No one has suggested that the government has any such authority, or that Clinton’s release of emails to the State Department was anything other than purely discretionary. There is no indication as yet of what she did not produce. That’s ultimately the problem here – just as with Rove and the various Bush officials who did this, the way HRC structured her official communications means that we don’t know how much we don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/118 "2015-03-04T22:09:53Z")
With apologies for the tangent, but how in the hell did this issue not come up sometime during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State? Shouldn’t it have been widely known that she didn’t have an official .gov email address? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/119 "2015-03-04T22:25:02Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > No one has suggested that the government has any such authority, Well someone should have, [because they do](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-committee-to-subpoena-clintons-private-emails/2015/03/04/b4cec61c-c29b-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html). > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > or that Clinton’s release of emails to the State Department was anything other than purely discretionary. That one was. The current one is by subpoena. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > There is no indication as yet of what she did not produce. That’s ultimately the problem here – just as with Rove and the various Bush officials who did this, the way HRC structured her official communications means that we don’t know how much we don’t know. That’s true, no argument with that. OTOH, what’s to prevent someone from dutifully using the official State Dept account and communicating surreptitiously with some secret account or some other means entirely? If you can’t trust an empowered senior Cabinet-level official, the fact that they seem to be using a government email account is hardly a lot of reassurance. Again, no argument that this would have been the right way to do things and she should have shown some leadership and integrity by doing do. Now Jeb Bush looks like a saint for publicizing some stupid emails that no one cares about. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092/120 "2015-03-04T23:37:43Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Following precedent is not always the best way to become the following President. Nice!😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-clinton-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-personal-e-mail-account/714092.md?page=7)