# I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 29, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514 "2016-03-29T13:31:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/181 "2016-06-08T13:51:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed. I think you must be using some colloquial definition of “criminal intent” here–i.e., that people have been convicted for knowingly disclosing or mishandling classified information for non-criminal purposes. If so, I’m sure that’s true. But if you’re using the actual definition of “criminal intent”–i.e., relevant knowledge (or recklessness) that the information was classified–then I think your claim is probably false depending on what you mean by “plenty.” Notwithstanding loose talk about strict liability by some ill-informed bloggers, I don’t think any of the relevant laws actually lack criminal intent requirements. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/182 "2016-06-08T18:18:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As even the FBI told us that Hillary Clinton is not the target of the security review, I have to agree with Weld. Where in your link did the FBI tell us that? I’ve seen reports from unnamed FBI sources leaked to media members that go both directions. Here the only FBI comment I saw in your link. > [@](#): > > Describing the inquiry, FBI Director James Comey told Congress in October 2015, “The FBI is working on a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with former Sec. Clinton’s use of a private email server.” > > He declined to give any more specifics. Having said that, your link is from January. Here’s from the same source in May. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/) > [@](#): > > Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI “target” is unknown. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/183 "2016-06-08T18:23:57Z")
It seems to me that any claim that Clinton is not being investigated or is not the target of an investigation is without support. The same could be said for people claiming she definitively is the target. The FBI simply hasn’t told us yet. [http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case) > [@](#): > > In a separate filing Monday, the Justice Department refused to detail the nature of the FBI probe connected to Clinton’s machine, except that it was based on a “security referral” from inspectors general at the State Department and federal intelligence agencies. > > “[T]he FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation,” in order to keep the information secret, it asserted. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/184 "2016-06-08T20:11:18Z")
It’s all technical. It’s a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone’s getting indicted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/185 "2016-06-08T20:13:42Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > It seems to me that any claim that Clinton is not being investigated or is not the target of an investigation is without support. The same could be said for people claiming she definitively is the target. The FBI simply hasn’t told us yet. > > [http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case) I got the information from here: [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?\_r=0](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0) > [@](#): > > The F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation. > > Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence. Incidentally the FBI would not tell such a thing to all who ask, but to the persons who are suspected or being targeted if they request to know. In this case it would be **less** likely for a lawyer like Clinton to not had done as such a thing, and her actions afterwards do reflect that that took place indeed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/186 "2016-06-08T20:21:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s all technical. It’s a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone’s getting indicted. And the full weight of your expertise and authority is behind that? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/187 "2016-06-08T20:33:04Z")
Well, I could be wrong, maybe they actually will indict the email account. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/188 "2016-06-08T20:45:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, I could be wrong, maybe they actually will indict the email account. And indeed you are, the FBI can not indict anyone, they can only recommend that. Bottom line is that on this subject the Republicans have ramped up the bullshit and just like in other past “scandals” the end result IMHO is that there will be many Republicans that will become unhinged when they realize that a lot of what they promised will not take place regarding Hillary going to Prison. Unhinged yes, but many will still go back for other bullshit. But, what I also expect is to see more than a few Republicans that will, in combination of seeing Trump become the nominee and realizing that they were had once again by the Republican party regarding the Clintons, vote for Hillary in disgust for all the bullshit that was tossed at them. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/189 "2016-06-08T20:47:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s all technical. It’s a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone’s getting indicted. [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-questions-hillary-clintons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-questions-hillary-clintons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269) > [@](#): > > Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a “security inquiry,” FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase. > > “I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. “We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do.” > > One reporter noted that former Secretary of State Clinton often refers to it as a “security inquiry.” > > The word “investigation” – "it’s in our name,” Comey responded. “And I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/190 "2016-06-08T20:59:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And indeed you are, the FBI can not indict anyone, they can only recommend that. Bottom line is that on this subject the Republicans have ramped up the bullshit and just like in other past “scandals” the end result IMHO is that there will be many Republicans that will become unhinged when they realize that a lot of what they promised will not take place regarding Hillary going to Prison. If the FBI recommends indictment, it’s game over, regardless of what Loretta Lynch does. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/191 "2016-06-08T21:03:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I got the information from here: > > [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?\_r=0](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0) > Incidentally the FBI would not tell such a thing to all who ask, but to the persons who are suspected or being targeted if they request to know. In this case it would be **less** likely for a lawyer like Clinton to not had done as such a thing, and her actions afterwards do reflect that that took place indeed. Your story is pretty old (August 2015). Look again at the story I posted regarding the motion filed this week (6/6/16). [http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case) [https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12](https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12) Directly from the motion from the Justice Department. > [@](#): > > Because the FBI’s principal function is law enforcement, the FBI’s claimed purpose for the withheld records is entitled to deference here. > > … > > Therefore, the FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation > > … > > The FBI met both parts of the deferential standard here. The FBI has publicly stated that it is working on a referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State in connection with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server. > > … > > Thus, the FBI identified a particular incident in connection with the investigation, not merely “a general monitoring of private individuals’ activities.” > Pratt > , 673 F.2d at 420. And the referral from the Inspectors General to the FBI provided a rational nexus between the pending investigation and the FBI’s law enforcement duties. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/192 "2016-06-08T21:05:12Z")
Oh, it’s definitely an investigation of Clinton, she’s just not a “target”, which is a purely technical term. If she was a target, she’d be quite screwed already. Once the FBI is targeting you, they’ll get you for something. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/193 "2016-06-08T21:25:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Oh, it’s definitely an investigation of Clinton, she’s just not a “target”, which is a purely technical term. If she was a target, she’d be quite screwed already. Once the FBI is targeting you, they’ll get you for something. Even that doesn’t seem right. How do we know she’s not a target? They’re coming out and directly saying they aren’t naming their targets. She’s trying to characterize this as a general review of policies of the past several secretaries of state. It’s not an investigation, it’s an inquiry. She’s not a target. She followed all the rules and did the same thing as Powell and Rice. Rules have since been clarified. At the same time the Justice Department is filing motions saying it is an investigation related specifically to the FBI’s principal role of law enforcement and relates directly to “Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server”. I’m not saying I think she’s going to jail, but I think these blanket assertions that she’s not a target of any investigation and has not broken any laws are just wishful thinking. That might be true, but we don’t know it because the FBI hasn’t told us anything yet. It simply can’t be proven either way. Common sense tells me, though no doubt most of this board would disagree, that the FBI thinks there is at least something there worth investigating. I think they would have dropped it long before now if it was as simple as she’s doing the same thing as Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice. It further seems to me that there is a greater than zero chance that the clear Presidential front runner and only remaining viable candidate running may face a criminal indictment a few short months before the election date. The prospect of that terrifies me. Not sure what percentage chance I put on it happening; it’s certainly less than 50% but probably greater than 10%. I hope the Democrats have a good fall-back plan. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/194 "2016-06-08T22:48:09Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Your story is pretty old (August 2015). Look again at the story I posted regarding the motion filed this week (6/6/16). > > [http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282454-fbi-asks-to-make-new-secret-filing-in-clinton-email-case) > > [https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12](https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12) > > Directly from the motion from the Justice Department. And nowhere there contradicts what I said, even if old. The point stands as you also helped establish it, most of what the right wing has going on has been bullshit. And the ones that could be targets can demand the FBI to confirm if that is the case, one can dismiss what Hillary has said but it is less likely IMHO that she did not ask, and her behavior afterwards points to what she reported about what the FBI told her that she is not the target; so far, but that is what it should be reported, not the certifiable bullshit that we have seen coming from the right. Some of what they say about Clinton is accurate, but this only underlines what I think is going to happen. The results are likely to be embarrassing to Clinton, but it is more likely that there will not be a recommendation to an indictment and even going farther a less likely conviction; it will underline how bad the right has been when giving information to their readers and viewers. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/195 "2016-06-08T22:53:25Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Even that doesn’t seem right. How do we know she’s not a target? They’re coming out and directly saying they aren’t naming their targets. That is right, because it is not the [del]beeswax[/del] business **of people that are not involved**. However, this has been known for ages: > **[What we know about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails](https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/)** > > Over the past couple of days, some Hillary Clinton critics have complained over the way her campaign has described the F > [@](#): > > If people ask about their status in an investigation, it’s common practice for the Justice Department to tell them whether they’re targets or not, said Lauren Ouziel, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law. > > “If she has been informed by the DOJ that she is presently not a target, then her statement that she is not a target would be accurate,” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/196 "2016-06-08T23:05:43Z")
This isn’t quite a “they did it too” argument, but, rather, “a much worse offense was never indicted,” and that’s Cheney and Libby and the Plame affair. (Libby was indicted for lying to investigators.) If something of that magnitude never resulted in an indictment, it seems absurd that something a millionth as bad possibly could. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/197 "2016-06-08T23:53:18Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This isn’t quite a “they did it too” argument, but, rather, “a much worse offense was never indicted,” and that’s Cheney and Libby and the Plame affair. (Libby was indicted for lying to investigators.) > > If something of that magnitude never resulted in an indictment, it seems absurd that something a millionth as bad possibly could. That’s not how the law works though. It’s about what you can prove. The whole investigation was looking in the wrong place. Richard Armitage was the source of the leak. There’s a lot less ambiguity in legal terms around Clinton’s email server. We don’t know for sure what exactly they are looking into, but assuming it’s about security, “Secure vs. not secure” isn’t really difficult to determine and prosecute. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/198 "2016-06-08T23:59:09Z")
Now on the poitics of it you are right, but in political terms Clinton vs. Bush isn’t the race, it’s Clinton vs. Trump, so it’s actually Clinton’s lack of transparency vs. Trump basically being a fraud in general. Clinton probably wins there too. Although politically, scandal as a member of the government might be frowned upon more than private sector scandal. And as with any scandal, it depends on how it’s handled as much as the merits of the scandal itself. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/199 "2016-06-10T02:42:44Z")
['Nuff said.](http://www.gocomics.com/candorville/2016/06/06) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2016, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/200 "2016-06-10T04:54:50Z")
Meh. Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She claimed that she didn’t delete anything very important. The FBI has since recovered most of the emails she deleted. She knows they are investigating and have all of the evidence. She knows that if she was a liar comma it would be exposed for all to see. Hillary Clinton has not blinked since the FBI said they recovered all of those emails. This is why, along with the long history of scandals that went up in smoke, I don’t think anything will come of this. Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=11)