# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/441 "2016-06-22T21:18:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What was marked classified? That link shows an email about the timing of a phone-call. Was there a classified attachment? Emails about phone call timing aren’t classified, even if someone stamps “classified” on them… in day to day work with classified material, which I have done for more than a decade, it’s incredibly common for even low-level staff to use common sense and not treat something as mundane as “the call is confirmed for 730 am” as classified, even if for some reason the page is marked as such. > > If a blank sheet of paper says “TOP SECRET”, that doesn’t mean it’s actually Top Secret. > > Apart from the other criticism, if this is the smoking gun, it’s nothing. > > EDIT: Also, what **Ravenman** said. There were bits below that which were classified. See [here](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/)for the full email. They’re claiming that the (C) indicates classified information. I.e., that it was known the info was classified when the email was sent. ---
**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:** [June 22, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/442 "2016-06-22T22:03:07Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > There were bits below that which were classified. See [here](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/)for the full email. They’re claiming that the (C) indicates classified information. I.e., that it was known the info was classified when the email was sent. Unless there are major details redacted, that sounds like the kind of mundane information that a SoS would feel entitled to declassify without more than a second thought. Little mundane details that happen to be marked classified, but have no conceivable risk to national security, are routinely “marked down” by classified workers without concern. If it’s a violation of law, it’s the kind of violation that happens probably hundreds of thousands of times per week in government offices around the country. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/443 "2016-06-22T22:50:50Z")
> [@Randolph](#): > > Say, is this a scandal yet? Well sort of. According to a recent [Morning Consult poll](https://morningconsult.com/2016/06/01/hillary-clinton-emails-poll-results/): > [@](#): > > Half of voters said Clinton’s use of a private email server was illegal, while more than a quarter of voters (27 percent) weren’t sure if it was legal or not. Just less than a quarter (22 percent) said they believed it was legal. Only 20 percent of voters believed her practice was ethical. > > Among all voters, 48 percent view the emails as a “major problem,” while 24 percent see it as a minor problem. Just 18 percent of voters said it was no problem at all. But even among Democrats, a quarter of them think it is a major problem for Clinton, compared with 50 percent of self-identified independents and 78 percent of Republicans. But she running against Trump so it doesn’t matter if it’s a scandal or not. ---
**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:** [June 23, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/444 "2016-06-23T00:46:56Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > There were bits below that which were classified. See [here](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/)for the full email. They’re claiming that the (C) indicates classified information. I.e., that it was known the info was classified when the email was sent. Faux News. Yeah, I’ll believe what they say in about the year 2477. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/445 "2016-06-23T02:16:34Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > There were bits below that which were classified. See [here](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/)for the full email. They’re claiming that the (C) indicates classified information. I.e., that it was known the info was classified when the email was sent. But, Clinton didn’t write that email. It was sent to her with the allegedly naughty bits. Christ, is this the level of political discourse now? Are people even reading this evidence befor saying how damaging it is? “Clinton abused her email by RECEIVING classified information typed by someone else and responding that 7:30 is a good time for a phone call!! We need a three year congressional investigation so we can learn what someone wrote, when they wrote it, and why it makes Clinton look bad!” ---
**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 23, 2016, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/446 "2016-06-23T02:54:42Z")
1. Sure, the insecure server stored technically classified emails. 2. But obviously Hillary Clinton has good enough judgment to have only retained or replied to classified emails that were not real security threats. 3. And there’s no point in discussing whether Hillary Clinton has shown good judgment about the security of emails unless it would cause you to vote for someone else. Are these three positions you hold simultaneously? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/447 "2016-06-23T13:06:28Z")
Are you talking to me, or some fantasy little green man whispering in your ear? It must be the Great Gazoo, because I don’t know where you get those ideas. ---
**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 23, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/448 "2016-06-23T13:17:45Z")
A simple “no” would have sufficed. Which of those positions do you not hold? ---
**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:** [June 23, 2016, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/449 "2016-06-23T13:46:07Z")
Considering how lax or over-confident most people, even many participating in this thread, are about their own computer security, is it not surprising that this issue has little traction? ---
**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 23, 2016, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/450 "2016-06-23T13:50:35Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Considering how lax or over-confident most people, even many participating in this thread, are about their own computer security, is it not surprising that this issue has little traction? I think that’s a big piece of it. People underestimate the amount of effort that foreign governments and entities put into spying on the US Secretary of State, how easy it is to breach a vulnerable server, and the intelligence value of relatively routine information when collected in real time. But I may be projecting, because I did all of those things, before learning more about them. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/451 "2016-06-23T13:53:48Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Considering how lax or over-confident most people, even many participating in this thread, are about their own computer security, is it not surprising that this issue has little traction? It does have traction, just not much on this board. I linked above and quoted that even among Dems a quarter think this is a “major problem”, only 20% of the total population think this was ethical behaviour. It’s easy to imagine it at least in part explains Hillary’s poor positive/negative polling. But, luckily she’s running against Trump and his craziness has more traction. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/452 "2016-06-23T15:40:50Z")
Its a matter of quantity over quality, Hillary deals in minor quantities, Trump delivers in carloads. Also, its Hillary. I blame both her and Horndog Bill for leading the Dems to be Republican Lite. Most likely, its more him than her. But I kinda like Bill, and I don’t like her. Its not fair, but there it is. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/453 "2016-06-23T16:22:27Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > A simple “no” would have sufficed. Which of those positions do you not hold? I hold the positions I’ve written about in this thread. You can read them at your leisure. ---
**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:** [June 23, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/454 "2016-06-23T16:44:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > It does have traction, just not much on this board. I linked above and quoted that even among Dems a quarter think this is a “major problem”, only 20% of the total population think this was ethical behaviour. It’s easy to imagine it at least in part explains Hillary’s poor positive/negative polling. But, luckily she’s running against Trump and his craziness has more traction. I worked in financial services with its own host of security provisions and protocols, and many, many people took shortcuts that they were just told not to do. Lazy and duplicated and written-down passwords, reviewing client files while logged into the Starbucks wi-fi, not sending secure emails as SECURE EMAILS, stuff like that. And with this issue, people are measuring what they are hearing about Hillary, comparing it to what they’re doing in their lives, and saying “meh.” So, yeah, most might see it as unethical, but many of those see it as the sort of unethical thing that they themselves are (or can be) guilty of doing. ---
**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 23, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/455 "2016-06-23T16:56:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I hold the positions I’ve written about in this thread. You can read them at your leisure. So you want me to go through and quote the exact posts where you said things that caused me to believe you held those positions before you explain to me how your actual positions differ? I’ll pass. Not sure why you’re being so hostile. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/456 "2016-06-23T17:20:21Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > So you want me to go through and quote the exact posts where you said things that caused me to believe you held those positions before you explain to me how your actual positions differ? I’ll pass. Not sure why you’re being so hostile. Since you attributed my position as being that we should not discuss Clinton’s judgment unless a certain condition is satisfied, I take your three summaries of “my” opinions to be silly strawmen that I feel no need to spend much time correcting. I’ve been discussing this matter for nine pages; surely you see the contraction of attributing that view to me. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/457 "2016-06-23T17:20:29Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > . And with this issue, people are measuring what they are hearing about Hillary, comparing it to what they’re doing in their lives, and saying “meh.” So, yeah, most might see it as unethical, but many of those see it as the sort of unethical thing that they themselves are (or can be) guilty of doing. That isn’t true. Most would not describe using “password” for your password then leaving the reminder sticky note on your monitor as illegal or unethical, just stupid or lazy. And she did a lot more than that by using her own poorly secured server. If you are going to fool yourself into thinking the poll results I posted indicate a collective “meh” then I will just leave you to your hyperpartisan bubble. ---
**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 23, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/458 "2016-06-23T17:26:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Since you attributed my position as being that we should not discuss Clinton’s judgment unless a certain condition is satisfied, I take your three summaries of “my” opinions to be silly strawmen that I feel no need to spend much time correcting. I’ve been discussing this matter for nine pages; surely you see the contraction of attributing that view to me. The view I attributed to you was “And there’s no point in discussing whether Hillary Clinton has shown good judgment about the security of emails unless it would cause you to vote for someone else.” Here’s what you’ve said in this thread about the relevance of the issue: > [@Ravenman](#): > > Hillary Clinton made poor decisions about her email… and so she can’t be trusted to be president? Is that where this is going? > [@Ravenman](#): > > Normally the election hinges on things like foreign policy, economic policy, civil rights, budget reform… not “can the President design her own IT policies correctly?” > [@Ravenman](#): > > I would hope for the sake of our country that you occupy more time wondering whether she did the right thing on resetting relations with Russia, fighting AIDS in Africa, or dealing with the Israel/Palestine situation than you spend worrying about her email server. > > At least for those issues you can say that there are actual consequences to her decisions on those issues, as opposed to “If she can’t be trusted with IT, I can’t trust her to run the country.” > [@Ravenman](#): > > I’ve asked the “so what?” question several times. And the most anyone can muster is, “B-b-b-but she didn’t listen to her IT people!” So, it strikes me as a fair summary of your position. Spending nine pages arguing that the issue isn’t worth talking about doesn’t really contradict you holding the view that the issue doesn’t merit discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/459 "2016-06-23T17:43:32Z")
If someone says that X is a big deal, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to inquire if X is a bigger deal than Y. And if we find out that X is less of a big deal than, say, five, ten, 15, or 20 other letters of the alphabet, then it means that X isn’t as big a deal as is being portrayed. That doesn’t mean that discussion of X must end. Ergo, strawman. ---
**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 23, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/460 "2016-06-23T18:15:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If someone says that X is a big deal, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to inquire if X is a bigger deal than Y. And if we find out that X is less of a big deal than, say, five, ten, 15, or 20 other letters of the alphabet, then it means that X isn’t as big a deal as is being portrayed. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. All you’ve demonstrated is that Hillary Clinton’s judgment over the security of her information is less important than her judgment about any number of other possible areas of bad judgment. That doesn’t prove that it is less important than it was portrayed to be. I have not claimed that this is the political equivalent of her thinking we should start a trade war with China. I have claimed that it reflects quite poorly on her judgment in a way that matters more than you admit in your characterization of it as merely “B-b-b-but she didn’t listen to her IT people!” And it strikes me as telling that in the same series of posts in which you deny that her judgment about information security issues matters, you ask us to rely on her judgment about information security issues. > [@Ravenman](#): > > That doesn’t mean that discussion of X must end. Ergo, strawman. Ergo, strawman, indeed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=24)