# Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign Discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 4, 2016, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873 "2016-05-04T11:09:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 44
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/861 "2016-09-04T17:34:28Z")
Eh. I think Comey was within his rights to say what he did in announcing that the FBI would not be recommending that Hillary be indicted. If he hadn’t, Hillary’s campaign would’ve spun it as a big win and the FBI’s de facto seal of approval. Comey made sure that wouldn’t happen, and in doing so, also sent an important signal to other public officials who might be tempted to follow in her footsteps. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/862 "2016-09-04T19:01:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Reckless- she mishandled classified information. Fact > > Ignorant- she pleaded ignorance when questioned about her mishandling of classified information. Fact, because she admitted her own ignorance(more likely lied, but we’ll take stupid since she’s copped to it). > > Dishonest- the majority of claims she made about her email account were later proven to be untrue. Fact. > > Comey could have really let her have it if he had wanted to editorialize. He showed a lot of restraint. He never actually said she was either a liar or stupid. There you go again, defining terms incorrectly. She mishandled classified information - fact. Reckless - opinion. Not knowing a particular fact - ignorant _of that particular fact_. Ignorant in the general sense you’re trying to expand it to - opinion, and clearly unsupported opinion at that. Dishonest _about that particular issue_ - fact. Dishonest as a general application, once again, as you’re trying to make it - opinion. Are you honest? Have you ever told a lie, lied by omission, or exaggerated/understated? (If the answer to any of those is no, you’re an even bigger liar.) Therefore you are dishonest according to your own standard. Spare us all the self-righteous bullshit that is logical only so far as it supports your point and ideology. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/863 "2016-09-04T19:57:04Z")
If it had been one lie, that would be something. She told numerous lies, all in the interests of trying to put an end to the controversy. She should have come clean from the beginning. We’re STILL finding new stuff out because she won’t tell the truth. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/864 "2016-09-04T20:16:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If it had been one lie, that would be something. She told numerous lies, all in the interests of trying to put an end to the controversy. She should have come clean from the beginning. We’re STILL finding new stuff out because she won’t tell the truth. Question: Are all statements either the truth, or a lie? ---
**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:** [September 4, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/865 "2016-09-04T20:30:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If it had been one lie, that would be something. She told numerous lies, all in the interests of trying to put an end to the controversy. She should have come clean from the beginning. We’re STILL finding new stuff out because she won’t tell the truth. We’re still finding out new incredibly mundane stuff that has no relevance to anything. Actual revelations haven’t come out for a while. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/866 "2016-09-05T05:41:29Z")
So Assange is still saying that he has something so damaging on Clinton that it will be a game changer. I think he over estimates his own importance. Unless he has a video of Clinton ordering someone killed or something else just as serious the public is going to shrug and mostly say “still better than Trump”. Also I think most of the public is just burnt out on scandals and controversies at this point. Unless he’s completely bluffing most likely Wikileaks has hard evidence that as The Secretary of state, Clinton ordered weapons sold to ISIS in an attempt to use them to topple Assad. Or it’s something else shady connected to the Clinton Foundation. My gut feeling is that if those are Wikileaks big damaging info most of the voting public will just shrug and ignore it. Of course the Trump supporters will incoherently blather about locking her up again, but I don’t see it changing many voters minds. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/867 "2016-09-05T08:05:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re still finding out new incredibly mundane stuff that has no relevance to anything. Actual revelations haven’t come out for a while. Clinton lying about turning over all her work emails sounds pretty significant to me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/868 "2016-09-05T08:08:02Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > So Assange is still saying that he has something so damaging on Clinton that it will be a game changer. I think he over estimates his own importance. Unless he has a video of Clinton ordering someone killed or something else just as serious the public is going to shrug and mostly say “still better than Trump”. Also I think most of the public is just burnt out on scandals and controversies at this point. > > Unless he’s completely bluffing most likely Wikileaks has hard evidence that as The Secretary of state, Clinton ordered weapons sold to ISIS in an attempt to use them to topple Assad. Or it’s something else shady connected to the Clinton Foundation. My gut feeling is that if those are Wikileaks big damaging info most of the voting public will just shrug and ignore it. Of course the Trump supporters will incoherently blather about locking her up again, but I don’t see it changing many voters minds. The big story isn’t what any particular email says: it’s the Russian government releasing classified emails from Clinton’s server that damage American security. That would mean she got hacked due to her own “reckless” behavior. And would pretty much end the debate on whether she’s fit for the Presidency. At that point, she stops being superior to Trump and becomes just like him in the ways that matter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/869 "2016-09-05T08:17:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …That would mean she got hacked due to her own “reckless” behavior… How do other people get hacked? Or do we have your word, as an expert in computer security, that “recklessness” is the only way it happens? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/870 "2016-09-05T08:50:55Z")
I’m sure that will be the campaign’s primary talking point. “It could have happened to anyone!” But if it happened to her, with her unusual, unauthorized, less secure setup, then it’s over. Trump could be swapped out for Charles Manson and he’d win 40 states. Besides, she said she didn’t handle classified info on the server, and she turned over all work related emails. Therefore, the Russians can’t possibly have any surprises of that nature. So rest easy. YOu trust her, right? ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/871 "2016-09-05T09:02:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The big story isn’t what any particular email says: it’s the Russian government releasing classified emails from Clinton’s server that damage American security. That would mean she got hacked due to her own “reckless” behavior. And would pretty much end the debate on whether she’s fit for the Presidency. At that point, she stops being superior to Trump and becomes just like him in the ways that matter. First, Russia can lie about hacking her server including generating fake confidential documents to insert into real emails. So the Clinton team can at least somewhat plausibly just say that whatever is released is fake. Second the public has already indicated that they don’t really give a crap about Clinton’s emails. You’re delusional if you think this would convince many people to change their votes when Trump would be so much more reckless with National Security because he’s a big mouth who can’t control his temper and loves insulting people. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/872 "2016-09-05T12:12:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m sure that will be the campaign’s primary talking point. “It could have happened to anyone!” But if it happened to her, with her unusual, unauthorized, less secure setup, then it’s over. Trump could be swapped out for Charles Manson and he’d win 40 states. > > Besides, she said she didn’t handle classified info on the server, and she turned over all work related emails. Therefore, the Russians can’t possibly have any surprises of that nature. So rest easy. YOu trust her, right? I trust Clinton more than I trust Putin’s preferred candidate. This issue is not a winner for Your Guy. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/873 "2016-09-05T16:04:41Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > First, Russia can lie about hacking her server including generating fake confidential documents to insert into real emails. So the Clinton team can at least somewhat plausibly just say that whatever is released is fake. Second the public has already indicated that they don’t really give a crap about Clinton’s emails. You’re delusional if you think this would convince many people to change their votes when Trump would be so much more reckless with National Security because he’s a big mouth who can’t control his temper and loves insulting people. If it’s fake, sure. If it’s not, then that’s a huge risk, because if she got caught in that kind of outright lie she’d be impeached. The public furor would pretty much require it. That’s why it’s better not to lie. As you say, a lot of people don’t care if she got hacked. They don’t care if she gets hacked again. They don’t care if she sells national secrets to the Koreans as long as the money gets plugged into health care. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/874 "2016-09-05T16:19:09Z")
There is simply no evidence, or lack of it, capable of getting your consideration regarding Ms. Clinton, is there? You already \*know \*The Truth, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/875 "2016-09-05T16:45:44Z")
Well, OK, how do you propose that the Pubies inform us of the desperately important info in those ©-marked documents? They are confidential, yes? Admittedly, the lowest possible form of secret, but still. Luckily, almost miraculously, the actual facts of those © marked communications have _not_ been leaked! Signs and wonders! So, either no Republican ever found out what terrifying secrets are there to be revealed, or stern duty demanded that they refrain from seizing such an advantage. However tempting it might have been, they resolutely abstained from such sleaze, for the good of the country! You are welcome to regard that second option as plausible. The third option is that they do, in fact, know. And are pretending that they don’t know, because the info contained therein is trivial and insignificant, as implied by the © designation. And further, they would rather _not_ have that info revealed, because it might reveal that they are raising a hue and cry over the seating arrangements at a State reception in Upper Volta. Of course, just as I said, they might know, and refused to take huge political advantage because of their, ah, ethics and civic responsibility. That’s certainly possible! Sorta. Kinda. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/876 "2016-09-05T16:54:54Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > But in the meantime, of course, Trump is making hay over how RIDICULOUS it is that Hillary is claiming she doesn’t know what a C means! When every _schoolchild_ knows what a C means!!!11!!!1!!! Etc.’ Cookie? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/877 "2016-09-05T16:57:06Z")
“Passed”! Third grade, here I come! ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/878 "2016-09-05T17:29:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > … the desperately important info in those (c)-marked documents? … the lowest possible form of secret, … the info contained therein is trivial and insignificant, as implied by the (c) designation. Just to inject some facts here, the recently-released FBI documents said: > [@](#): > > 81 email chains, which the FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on Clinton’s UNCLASSIFIED personal server systems, contained classified information ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM levels at the time they were sent between 2009-2013. Pretending it was just “the seating arrangements at a State reception in Upper Volta” doesn’t seem to square with reality. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/879 "2016-09-05T17:32:03Z")
> **[Trump Mocks Clinton Classification Mistake, Makes Mistake Himself](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-clinton-classified-confidential)** > > One of Donald Trump's favorite talking points is his opponent Hillary Clinton's private email servers and how he feels they put classified documents in jeopardy. But, in a tweet Sunday evening… **Trump Mocks Clinton Classification Mistake, Makes Mistake Himself** Well, boy, is my face red! Orange. Whatever. i kinda thought (c) meant “classified”, but turns out it means “confidential”, which is the category for nuclear launch codes and the precise GPS coordinates for Bill Clinton’s coke-smuggling airstrip. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2016, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/880 "2016-09-05T17:35:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Just to inject some facts here, the recently-released FBI documents said… Always good form to include the actual source when offering a citation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873.md?page=45)