# Hillary Clinton's lies and scandals **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 24, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523 "2016-05-24T04:00:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**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:** [May 25, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/141 "2016-05-25T21:32:45Z")
Goalpost 1: “They’ve personally enriched themselves more than any other politicians in U.S. history.” Goalpost 2: “I’m saying that they have enriched themselves through their political positions more than anyone else.” Just so we’re clear here. Math question: If you and your spouse are being paid an average of $150k to give a speech, how many speeches would you have to give in a 16 year period in order to have $100 million in speech earnings? 1. Or 41 per year. Or 3.5 a month. Or 1.75 speeches per month, per spouse. Again, I don’t see the impossibility here or the smell of corruption. You think it’s “unsavory” that the most personable President in our lifetimes commands $200k+ a speech? I think it’s odd that Donald Trump was paid $1.5 million for a speech a few years ago, but I don’t call it unsavory. I don’t consider it unsavory that W has made over $15 million since 2008 in speeches. It’s just a stream of revenue. [http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2010/04/10-highest-paid-public-speakers-in-the-world/](http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2010/04/10-highest-paid-public-speakers-in-the-world/) > **[In Demand: Washington's Highest (and Lowest) Speaking Fees](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590#2)** ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/142 "2016-05-25T21:34:12Z")
> [@](#): > > …Also, not calling LBJ the most ethical guy… LBJ? Your cognomen suggests some familiarity with Texas. The insinuation that Texas politics was “corrupt” is on a par with suggesting that a two-dollar Shanghai waterfront hooker is “unchaste”. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/143 "2016-05-25T21:38:37Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The writer of that article is a seething moron, but other than that, how many classified emails did Clinton send herself? How many of the classified emails were retroactively classified? I’m not saying anything about the article. It was just the first link I pulled up that had a more recent date. Clinton sent at least 104 classified emails herself, compared to 0 for Rice, 0 for Powell, 0 for Albright, 0 for Kerry. Probably all were retroactively classified. That doesn’t mean that the content wasn’t always classified though. It means they weren’t attached documents that were marked classified. If they typed in an email that included classified information in the content, by definition it would have to have been retroactively classified. Further, it doesn’t matter. She clearly signed an agreement to not disclosed classified information whether “marked or unmarked”. [https://www.pdffiller.com/en/project/65373887.htm?form\_id=100045934](https://www.pdffiller.com/en/project/65373887.htm?form_id=100045934) I can grant some wiggle room here. I think there is certainly argument that may be made that things might get overly classified or they err too conservatively on classifying. I can get behind that. What clearly matters most is whether the content was known to be classified information at the time it was sent. When you have thousands of cases and the inspector general of the state department, numerous individuals with classified access, and probably soon to be the FBI all come down on you then I think it’s pretty clear you weren’t fulfilling your duties on safeguarding information. > [@Lobohan](#): > > It seems to me, that the tweeter in question, misunderstood that quote. By accessible, she obviously means she doesn’t want her personal email address to be something that any asshole can look up. Possible, but I disagree. I don’t think that was what she meant. If all she wanted was her personal email address to not be accessible, then it seems massively easier to not use your personal email address for work related items. Do what everyone else does and have a separate email address for personal and for work. > [@Lobohan](#): > > If you think that deserves a “Wow”, I’m not sure what to say. When I worked for other people, sometimes my boss told me to drop shit too. Except their thing they were being told to drop was exactly the thing that she even she now admits was a mistake and something she has just been slapped down for by the inspector general. Also, the inspector general thinks it is worthwhile enough to put it in the report. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/144 "2016-05-25T21:41:43Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Now there’s at least two posters in this thread that think raising money for charity is scandalous. Is raising any amount of money scandalous or is there a dollar limit people in the charity business should be wary of? Raising money for charity is obviously fine. Raising money from people that you are then also doing business with crosses an ethical line. It raises a clear conflict of interest. Say for example, raising money from a foreign country and then turning around and making a favorable reward to that foreign country. Further, when you are also personally benefiting from that charity to the tune of millions of dollars per year, then it moves it even further into the negative territory. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/145 "2016-05-25T21:47:27Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Goalpost 1: “They’ve personally enriched themselves more than any other politicians in U.S. history.” > > Goalpost 2: “I’m saying that they have enriched themselves through their political positions more than anyone else.” > > Just so we’re clear here. No, there’s no change and my implication was obvious. You may have misinterpreted it, but that’s your problem. > [@JohnT](#): > > Math question: If you and your spouse are being paid an average of $150k to give a speech, how many speeches would you have to give in a 16 year period in order to have $100 million in speech earnings? > > 1. Or 41 per year. Or 3.5 a month. Or 1.75 speeches per month, per spouse. > > Again, I don’t see the impossibility here or the smell of corruption. You think it’s “unsavory” that the most personable President in our lifetimes commands $200k+ a speech? I think it’s odd that Donald Trump was paid $1.5 million for a speech a few years ago, but I don’t call it unsavory. I don’t consider it unsavory that W has made over $15 million since 2008 in speeches. It’s just a stream of revenue. It toes the line into bribery. You are personally making money off someone that you can then enrich through public funds. It’s a horrible practice. They pay expecting influence. You think people are paying Chelsea Clinton $100,000+ to make speeches because she’s just an entertaining speaker? It’s far worse than any type of normal lobbying effort that you same people rail against. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/146 "2016-05-25T21:47:39Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Raising money for charity is obviously fine. Raising money from people that you are then also doing business with crosses an ethical line. It raises a clear conflict of interest. Say for example, raising money from a foreign country and then turning around and making a favorable reward to that foreign country. Further, when you are also personally benefiting from that charity to the tune of millions of dollars per year, then it moves it even further into the negative territory. But Hillary Clinton wasn’t involved in the work of the foundation while she was SoS. Also, who was personally getting millions of dollars per year from the foundation and in what years. This is an honest question. I have not heard this. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/147 "2016-05-25T21:55:34Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > My god, how can you possibly equate these? Rice herself never used (sent or received) email. Of her staff, there were a total of 10 emails that were retroactively classified. Powell had 2 emails that he received that were retroactively classified. > > You want to equate that to literally thousands of emails that were sent or received by Clinton and her staff. You’re equating actions that ranged from never to rare under Powell and Rice to exclusive and daily under Clinton. It’s just pure insanity. Are you really comparing the same thing. You are referring to retroactive classification of emails to “literally thousands of emails that were sent or received by Clinton and her staff” without telling us how many of those were retroactively classified. And are 10 and 2 really the grand totals? From [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/index.html) in February: > [@](#): > > The emails were discovered during a State Department review of the email practices of the past five secretaries of state. It found that Powell received two emails that were classified and that the “immediate staff” working for Rice received 10 emails that were classified. > > The information was deemed either “secret” or “confidential,” according to the report. > > “Based on the department’s responses and findings to date, _additional potential classified material and/or highly sensitive information not intended for distribution may reside in the Department’s unclassified paper and electronic archives associated with Secretaries Powell and Rice and their respective st_aff,” a memo about the report said. (Emphasis added). And how significant is this revelation of “retroactive classification” anyway? > [@](#): > > In all the cases, however – as well as Clinton’s – the information was not marked “classified” at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators. > > Powell noted that point in a statement on Thursday. > > “The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren’t,” Powell said. “If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share.” > > “I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified,” Powell said. So retroactive classification of emails is a touchy subject. Still, do we have anything telling us whether Clinton’s were classified at the time they were sent and received or whether they were retroactive? Look at [this](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/22/408774111/state-department-to-release-more-clinton-emails-today) from a few days ago: > [@](#): > > Emails released Friday by the State Department appear to confirm Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she received no classified information on her personal email account while she served as secretary of state. Still, some of the emails were classified at the FBI’s request after the fact — something the White House says is not uncommon. Hmm…is this whole classification thing kind of murky? What does [this](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/29/four-pressing-questions-about-hillary-clintons-sta/) Politifact article say? > [@](#): > > Agencies regularly disagree about whether information should be classified, even arguing over lines within the same document, said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. If the intelligence community declares something classified from its perspective, that does not automatically trump the State Department’s own decision that the same piece of information is not classified… > > However, if information came solely from the CIA, and it ended up in Clinton’s email without the proper classification marking, that could be problematic, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists… > > Ultimately, both Blanton and Aftergood said the memos tell us much more about the turf war between State and the intelligence community than they do about how Clinton handled her emails. > > “What leaps out at me is how dysfunctional our classification system has become, where you have different agencies and different offices arguing over the mere existence of classified information,” Aftergood said. “What does it say about Secretary Clinton? It doesn’t say anything about deliberate or negligent mishandling of classified information.” > > Blanton said, “The intelligence community is trying to override State Department determination. … It doesn’t say anything about Mrs. Clinton’s own activities.” Sorry, but I don’t think we aren’t at scandal level just yet… ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/148 "2016-05-25T21:59:17Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I’m not saying they are the richest politicians. I’m saying that they have enriched themselves through their political positions more than anyone else. Disregarding any personal benefits they get (of which there are numerous) from the billions of dollars they have raised as part of their foundation, they’ve made more than $100 million off of being president / presidential candidate. Who else even comes close? For this, you should thank [Gerald Ford](http://www.businessinsider.com/gerald-ford-changed-everything-by-making-money-off-his-presidency-2015-6)(and the value of inflation). > [@](#): > > …He was the first ex-president to sell the presidency. > > Within a year of leaving office (1977), Ford had earned something like $1 million. > > He sat on corporate boards (20th Century Fox, for instance) and made paid speeches. > > He was available for conventions, meetings and, I was told, the opening of a shopping center. > > A modest man of once-modest means, he soon had a home near Palm Springs and another one near Vail, where he liked to ski. The shocking thing is how not shocking any of this now is… > > Jerry Ford also got on the boards of Shearson/American Express, Beneficial Corp. of New Jersey and other companies and soon became rich. I suspect no one hired him for his expertise or his business acumen, asking him about interest rate swaps, buy-backs or, in 20th Century Fox’s case, whether to open a movie in the summer or wait for the Christmas crowd. (Besides, one of his fellow Fox board members told me Ford sometimes snoozed through their meetings.) He sold what they were buying, which was the prestige of the presidency. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/149 "2016-05-25T22:00:35Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I do think being successful in whatever they did prior to running for office is obviously a positive. Why would it be? Government is not like anything else. ---
**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:** [May 25, 2016, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/150 "2016-05-25T22:05:32Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > No, there’s no change. I quoted you directly. Are you claiming that I modified your quote? Look, as I mentioned, you obviously have it in for HRC. And I’m not really interested in seeing you torture the definition of “unsavory” and “bribery” into a shape that somehow includes actions performed by HRC but is exclusive of those same actions performed by every other President and current nominee. Have fun! ---
**Author:** ![MindsEye\_Watering](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindseye_watering/32/3619_2.png) [@MindsEye\_Watering](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MindsEye_Watering)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/151 "2016-05-25T22:06:57Z")
A little related to this thread: Is the FBI “investigation” currently being conducted in Mrs. Clinton’s activities **criminal** in nature? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/152 "2016-05-25T23:35:12Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I’m not saying they are the richest politicians. I’m saying that they have enriched themselves through their political positions more than anyone else. Disregarding any personal benefits they get (of which there are numerous) from the billions of dollars they have raised as part of their foundation, they’ve made more than $100 million off of being president / presidential candidate. Who else even comes close? Hmm there’s this guy that I’ve heard of, who’s made hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars off of his name. I believe DJT are his initials. Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/153 "2016-05-25T23:41:35Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > More than 2,000 sent/received. > [http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/03/02/hillary-emails-final-score-n2126822](http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/03/02/hillary-emails-final-score-n2126822) > > I haven’t tried to make a case. Just from some of the links from today I think it is blindingly obvious. I’ve made the case in other threads, but not restating and updating it all right now (may come back later). See below though from today’s reports and articles regarding it. > > [https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/735481433209372672](https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/735481433209372672) > > [https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/735495181298864128](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/735495181298864128) So your evidence is two Sanders supporters and a website that touts itself as, and I quote, “Conservative news, politics, opinion, breaking news analysis, political cartoons and commentary.” No, no possible bias there. Again, give me break. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/154 "2016-05-26T16:33:06Z")
> [@MindsEye\_Watering](#): > > A little related to this thread: Is the FBI “investigation” currently being conducted in Mrs. Clinton’s activities **criminal** in nature? I don’t see that this has been addressed. It is my understanding (and I am open to contrary opinion) that the FBI investigation is to determine whether classified information was leaked to somebody not supposed to receive it. That will lead to whatever response is deemed necessary, but it is not the role of the FBI to bring criminal charges. That would come from the Justice Department. I don’t see how any of this could lead to criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. The arbiter of what is a classified State Department communication is the Secretary of State ([Here’s](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information) the applicable Executive Order). So if Clinton said it wasn’t a classified email, then it wasn’t a classified email. And as [Politifact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/29/four-pressing-questions-about-hillary-clintons-sta/) explained in the link I provided upthread, there can be information that is “classified” one way, or in one department, and not classified in another. > [@](#): > > As backwards as it may seem, these two assertions – Clinton’s claim that she did not have any classified information in her email and the inspector general’s claim that she did – could both be partially accurate. This is primarily because the State Department disputes whether the information was classified. > > Agencies regularly disagree about whether information should be classified, even arguing over lines within the same document, said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. If the intelligence community declares something classified from its perspective, that does not automatically trump the State Department’s own decision that the same piece of information is not classified. > > Let’s say Clinton learned a piece of information – “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad” – from an official at the CIA, who told her that information was classified as top secret. Then separately, one of Clinton’s aides within the State Department said, “I learned from one of our Imperial sources that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad.” As the secretary, Clinton had ultimate authority to declare that “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad” is unclassified – which she could do by simply leaving it without a label – because the information originated in the State Department, despite the fact that it also originated in the intelligence community. So, if it _ **was** _ a criminal investigation, what law would be broken if an email, which wasn’t classified at the time it was sent, was retroactively classified, or deemed classified by a different department or agency? … [QUOTE=LonghornDave] More than 2,000 sent/received. [http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...score-n2126822](http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...score-n2126822) [/QUOTE] **LonghornDave** has evidence than “more than 2,000” classified emails were sent or received by Hillary. Where does that come from? Let’s see… > [@](#): > > the State Department has determined that more than 2,000 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s unsecure, improper server were classified. Many of these emails were low-level and retroactively classified, still a far cry from her categorical, false “there is no classified material” assertion last March. But there were dozens of emails designated as secret, top secret and even above top secret… Ahh…so of the 2,000, many were ‘retroactively classified’. But there were _dozens_ that were secret or above. So, are we really comparing Hillary’s dozens to the indeterminate number from Powell and Rice? Indeterminate? Oh, yeah, I remember… [QUOTE=CNN cite, above] “Based on the department’s responses and findings to date, additional potential classified material and/or highly sensitive information not intended for distribution may reside in the Department’s unclassified paper and electronic archives associated with Secretaries Powell and Rice and their respective staff,” a memo about the report said. [/QUOTE] Fortunately, **LonghornDave** ’s article has hyper-links! So we can get an idea where the phrase “dozens of emails” [comes from](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article63218372.html). > [@](#): > > The State Department released a new batch of 3,871 pages of Clinton’s emails Monday evening in response to a court order. Of those, 261 contain classified information. Most were at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification. Twenty-three of them were at the Secret level. > > None of Clinton’s emails was marked as classified during her tenure, State Department officials say, but intelligence officials say some material was clearly classified at the time. So, dozens means 23. None of those were marked as classified during her tenure (duh! She’s the decision maker on what is classified during her tenure). Oh, but note the nuance…_intelligence officials_ say that some of it was clearly classified at the time. Hmm…intelligence versus state. Where have I heard about that conflict before? [QUOTE=Earlier Politifcact article] Ultimately, both Blanton and Aftergood said the memos tell us much more about the turf war between State and the intelligence community than they do about how Clinton handled her emails. “What leaps out at me is how dysfunctional our classification system has become, where you have different agencies and different offices arguing over the mere existence of classified information,” Aftergood said. “What does it say about Secretary Clinton? It doesn’t say anything about deliberate or negligent mishandling of classified information.” Blanton said, “ **The intelligence community is trying to override State Department determination. … It doesn’t say anything about Mrs. Clinton’s own activities**.” [/QUOTE] (My emphasis) … [QUOTE=Me, when it was late, and I was stoned tired] Sorry, but I don’t think we aren’t at scandal level just yet… [/QUOTE] Double negative! I meant “are”, not "aren’t! :smack: ---
**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:** [May 26, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/155 "2016-05-26T17:16:59Z")
\*\*Moriarity \*\*, my good chap, it is a shame you spend yourself with that all-consuming feud with that Holmes fellow, you would be a worthy asset to the Clinton campaign. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/156 "2016-05-26T17:24:35Z")
A new Washington Post editorial calling out Hillary for not following the rules > **[Opinion | Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html)** > > She repeatedly ignored warnings not to use private email while secretary of state. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/157 "2016-05-26T17:49:26Z")
So the only thing I see is that she didn’t print and file some emails when she left. Is not printing and filing emails a criminal offense? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/158 "2016-05-26T17:51:12Z")
Rules, not laws. Heavier than a guideline, but just barely. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/159 "2016-05-26T17:56:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Rules, not laws. Heavier than a guideline, but just barely. May we refer to her as Hillary Rodham Nixon? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/160 "2016-05-26T19:14:45Z")
Sure. Don’t mean shit to a tree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523.md?page=9)