# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/81 "2016-03-30T18:11:01Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Yeah, I’m not sure how much of a primer you want on classified messages. We don’t know the nature of the classified information that was supposedly found. But if we assume a typical very-bad-case scenario, imagine that you have a clearance and sit in on a intelligence briefing. A slide pops up on the screen with a classification label, SECRET/NOFORN, and one of the bullets (marked with an S, for Secret) is “steronz wears panties.” You leave the briefing, sit down at your computer, and send an email to your buddy that says “steronz wears panties.” This is OK if A) you’re sending it on a classified network that can handle information up to Secret, B) your email is properly labelled so that all recipients know the information is secret, C) your buddy has a proper clearance, and D) he has a need to know. All of those conditions must be met. The scenario you described where you can send that information to anyone internally and a classification only needs to be determined at the time of a FOIA request is just bad on many, many levels. > > Again, full caveat, that’s probably not the sort of thing that happened in this case. But that should help explain the issue. But you’re seizing on the case that I specifically said was not the issue. What I’m thinking of is like where Clinton sends something to her Assistant SoS along the lines of “I spoke to President Obama and we’ve agreed that we will arm the Ukrainians if the conflict continues for another 2 months”. That’s not something that is going to be classified at the time - she is not going to be seeking a classification review before sending that email. But meanwhile, it could tick off the Russians if they found out, or could embolden the Ukrainians to prolong the conflict if they did. If someone was later doing some sort of FOIA request for Clinton emails a decision would have to be made as to whether it’s secret or not. But the fact that it wasn’t officially classified as secret at the time it was sent is just due to the nature of the process, and is not a legitimate defense. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/82 "2016-03-30T18:22:29Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But you’re seizing on the case that I specifically said was not the issue. > > What I’m thinking of is like where Clinton sends something to her Assistant SoS along the lines of “I spoke to President Obama and we’ve agreed that we will arm the Ukrainians if the conflict continues for another 2 months”. That’s not something that is going to be classified at the time - she is not going to be seeking a classification review before sending that email. But meanwhile, it could tick off the Russians if they found out, or could embolden the Ukrainians to prolong the conflict if they did. If someone was later doing some sort of FOIA request for Clinton emails a decision would have to be made as to whether it’s secret or not. But the fact that it wasn’t officially classified as secret at the time it was sent is just due to the nature of the process, and is not a legitimate defense. Ah, if you’re talking about information that originated from Clinton herself, then she would know better than to send anything like that over an unclassified network to begin with. It’s been reported that state department officials are given a classified guide book that says things like, “Information regarding arming of Ukranian militants is [typically] SECRET/NOFORN.” Bandying about information in that category on a classified network with unclassified headers might be fine, but it would represent poor judgement to use an unclassified network, and _extremely_ poor judgement to use a private server, although there’s not much difference between the two. Now it may be that Clinton carefully considered those sorts of emails and decided that the unclassified network was fine, and then another agency did a review and came to a different conclusion. And it could be that they’re both “right,” as it were – the other agency might have concerns that the state department didn’t or couldn’t have known about. But we really don’t know what time of information it was. Generally, I think the classified angle is overplayed, but that doesn’t really excuse the hubris of running a private server. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/83 "2016-03-30T18:33:08Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Ah, if you’re talking about information that originated from Clinton herself, then she would know better than to send anything like that over an unclassified network to begin with. It’s been reported that state department officials are given a classified guide book that says things like, “Information regarding arming of Ukranian militants is [typically] SECRET/NOFORN.” Bandying about information in that category on a classified network with unclassified headers might be fine, but it would represent poor judgement to use an unclassified network, and _extremely_ poor judgement to use a private server, although there’s not much difference between the two. > > Now it may be that Clinton carefully considered those sorts of emails and decided that the unclassified network was fine, and then another agency did a review and came to a different conclusion. And it could be that they’re both “right,” as it were – the other agency might have concerns that the state department didn’t or couldn’t have known about. But we really don’t know what time of information it was. Generally, I think the classified angle is overplayed, but that doesn’t really excuse the hubris of running a private server. This seems to be a circular argument. You’re asserting that Clinton “_would know better than to send anything like that over an unclassified network to begin with_”, and that at most she “_carefully considered those sorts of emails and decided that the unclassified network was fine, and then another agency did a review and came to a different conclusion_”. But that’s exactly what’s in question at this time. And my point here is that the evidence relevant to this question is whether the information was of the sort that would have been classified at the time, not whether it actually was - because it wouldn’t have been classified at that time in any event due to the nature of the process. You saying that you personally don’t believe Clinton would have done something of the sort does not add anything in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/84 "2016-03-30T18:37:09Z")
Sorry, that should have been a “should” and not a “would.” She may have fucked up, or it may be all a bunch of hooey. Without knowing what the supposedly classified information is, it’s impossible to say. But she’s not automatically absolved of any wrongdoing for the reason you believe, is my point. It very well could have been classified at the time and she just didn’t realize it, or didn’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/85 "2016-03-30T18:54:58Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > The anti-Clinton arguments in this thread boil down to: _she MIGHT have revealed details of treaty negotiations in her emails; she MIGHT have posted gossip about world leaders in her emails; she MIGHT have sent bits of information that could be assembled into something that would hurt the USA._ > In other words: the entire argument that Clinton is a Bad, Bad person rests on what she MIGHT have done. > > What if she did none of those things? What if her emails consist of requests for a particular type of sandwich for lunch, or queries about changing the time of a meeting, or reminders to aides to bring along a gift recently purchased for a diplomat, or questions about how a new recharger works? > If your entire argument against a candidate is founded on what she _might_ have done, then you haven’t accomplished your undercutting goals very effectively. > [@furt](#): > > What a spectacularly ignorant post. Have you not read a single news story? > Requests for sandwiches would not be classified. We already _know_ that [over 2,000](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article63218372.html) of the emails in question contain classified information, and that’s after she deleted many thousands more. The only question at hand is whether or not her mishandling of classifed information rises to the level of criminal offense. Geez, read a newspaper. Here you are making an unsupported assumption about the nature of the emails that “contain classified information,” relying heavily on the implication that if it is “classified” it must be information that presents a danger to US interests if hacked or otherwise revealed. As anyone who is even \*marginally \*informed on the matter would know, items are retroactively labelled “classified” even if readily available in, say, The _New York Times_ (a la the ‘drone article’ forwarded via Clinton’s email). [http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-dismisses-new-report-about-top-secret-emails-as-a-campaign-ploy/](http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-dismisses-new-report-about-top-secret-emails-as-a-campaign-ploy/) The fact that you have to resort to insults says a great deal about the weakness of your position. Enough information about the emails has been released so that opponents of Clinton should be able to dispense with guessing games about what Clinton _might,_ hypothetically, have revealed (the Chinese premiere’s farts? really?) and pivot to actual, supportable facts. But that’s not happening. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What I’m thinking of is like where Clinton sends something to her Assistant SoS along the lines of “I spoke to President Obama and we’ve agreed that we will arm the Ukrainians if the conflict continues for another 2 months”. That’s not something that is going to be classified at the time - she is not going to be seeking a classification review before sending that email. But meanwhile, it could tick off the Russians if they found out, or could embolden the Ukrainians to prolong the conflict if they did. . Again with the hypotheticals. Unconvincing. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/86 "2016-03-30T19:18:19Z")
Tempest in a teacup, for the most part. I’ve mentioned in the past that I worked for Diplomatic Security for some years during the last of the Cold War. Part of our job was to try to make sure that people were observing correct protocol both in what they did and in what they said. I can’t begin to tell you how many ambassadors we told about security issues _right in their own office suites_, only to be told to basically mind our own business. These sorts of breaches ranged from having a personal television or radio (which oscillate) sitting next to the computer terminal, to having classified discussions in their offices, where the Euro phones were telephonic _on hook_ (which means that anybody downstream could clip onto the line and hear everything going on in the office, even when the phone was hung up). The worst that will happen to someone doing these things would be loss of security clearance, and then only if a serious information leak was traced back to that particular person. Nobody is really willing to fuck with a Senior Foreign Service Officer over something like this. That doesn’t make it right or even advisable to ignore warnings, but there are no teeth behind the regs. It’s like a cop trying to enforce a jay-walking charge against the chief of police. If Clinton sent sensitive info in email form, I’m fairly confident that it didn’t rise to the level of breaching national security. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/87 "2016-03-30T19:54:07Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Tempest in a teacup, for the most part. I’ve mentioned in the past that I worked for Diplomatic Security for some years during the last of the Cold War. Part of our job was to try to make sure that people were observing correct protocol both in what they did and in what they said. I can’t begin to tell you how many ambassadors we told about security issues _right in their own office suites_, only to be told to basically mind our own business. These sorts of breaches ranged from having a personal television or radio (which oscillate) sitting next to the computer terminal, to having classified discussions in their offices, where the Euro phones were telephonic _on hook_ (which means that anybody downstream could clip onto the line and hear everything going on in the office, even when the phone was hung up). > > The worst that will happen to someone doing these things would be loss of security clearance, and then only if a serious information leak was traced back to that particular person. Nobody is really willing to fuck with a Senior Foreign Service Officer over something like this. That doesn’t make it right or even advisable to ignore warnings, but there are no teeth behind the regs. It’s like a cop trying to enforce a jay-walking charge against the chief of police. If Clinton sent sensitive info in email form, I’m fairly confident that it didn’t rise to the level of breaching national security. I’ll add that in my experience in the Navy, both active duty and civilian, emailing classified information (or otherwise mishandling it) is _incredibly common_, and except in circumstances in which information was sold for profit or released for ideological (i.e. traitorous) reasons, it was never prosecuted. People were disciplined, certainly, but this was usually in the form of temporary loss of clearance and re-training, and that’s about it. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/88 "2016-03-30T20:49:35Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > If your entire argument against a candidate is founded on what she _might_ have done, then you haven’t accomplished your undercutting goals very effectively. It is sort of bizarre to frame your rebuttal as being against people trying to undercut Clinton’s candidacy, given that I am the OP and I plan to vote for her. And the substance of your argument doesn’t fare much better. Yes, it’s true, that we haven’t been shown everything considered classified that was discovered on her server (for obvious reasons). It does not follow that the case against her is pure speculation. It rests on the entirely reasonable inference–though apparently denied by some in this thread–that since she used her Blackberry almost exclusively then some of the many sensitive electronic documents that would have crossed her eyeballs ended up the server. There is, of course, reasonable debate to be had about how much sensitive information a Secretary of State has access to. And if you’re persuaded by **Martin Hyde** ’s assertions that the government has very few real secrets worth keeping, then it’s obvious what side of that you’ll come out on. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t understand the whole issue of whether the information Clinton sent was classified at the time. I think the relevance is solely to the ease of proving a criminal charge against her. If a document is marked classified, there is no need to further prove that she should have understood it to be classified. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/89 "2016-03-30T21:17:31Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Here you are making an unsupported assumption about the nature of the emails that “contain classified information,” relying heavily on the implication that if it is “classified” it must be information that presents a danger to US interests if hacked or otherwise revealed. > > As anyone who is even \*marginally \*informed on the matter would know, items are retroactively labelled “classified” even if readily available in, say, The _New York Times_ (a la the ‘drone article’ forwarded via Clinton’s email). [http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-dismisses-new-report-about-top-secret-emails-as-a-campaign-ploy/](http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-dismisses-new-report-about-top-secret-emails-as-a-campaign-ploy/) > > The fact that you have to resort to insults says a great deal about the weakness of your position. Enough information about the emails has been released so that opponents of Clinton should be able to dispense with guessing games about what Clinton _might,_ hypothetically, have revealed (the Chinese premiere’s farts? really?) and pivot to actual, supportable facts. This attitude is baffling to me. There are two separate issues. The first is the way Clinton dealt with handling classified information on her personal server that was not secure. The second issue is the actual information that crossed her server. The problem I have is with the first issue and second issue is trivial. The reason is simple. Clinton, as SecState, should have known that she would get email on her work email that was classified and that, at least some of that classified information would be damaging to the U.S. if her server was hacked. Yet she used a personal, insecure server anyway because carrying multiple devices was too hard. Or something. That is a gigantic lapse in judgement. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/90 "2016-03-30T21:17:35Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > … Yes, it’s true, that we haven’t been shown everything considered classified that was discovered on her server (for obvious reasons). It does not follow that the case against her is pure speculation. It rests on the entirely reasonable inference–though apparently denied by some in this thread–that since she used her Blackberry almost exclusively then some of the many sensitive electronic documents that would have crossed her eyeballs ended up the server. … This really is nothing but speculation, you know. This board is no stranger to tortured lines of reasoning springing from hypotheses about What Must Be, certainly. We’ve all waded into such threads from time to time. But why are _you_ using this style of argument? Enough has been published about specific emails that you could form your argument by at least _beginning from them_, heavily redacted though they might be. All you have posted, so far, is tut-tutting about how she MUST have posted “sensitive” information, and more tut-tutting about her failure to be obedient enough. It’s thin soup. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/91 "2016-03-30T21:29:04Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > This really is nothing but speculation, you know. Nah. What you call speculation when it suits you is the same thing you’d call inference in another context. The difference between abject speculation and reasonable inference is the distance of the leap. It is a short leap from what we know to the inference that Clinton reviewed and sent sensitive documents. The thin soup is assuming that all of the classified documents are actually non-sensitive. How is it reasonable for you to make that assumption? Over-classification is real. It doesn’t follow that nothing classified is sensitive. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/92 "2016-03-30T22:22:50Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Nah. What you call speculation when it suits you is the same thing you’d call inference in another context. Neither is _fact_. That is the point. I’m not claiming to have factual evidence that Clinton never emailed something “sensitive” enough to matter. I am saying that it is pointless to argue that Clinton has committed disqualifying acts on the basis of _inference_. For a respectable argument, you need a foundation composed of _facts_. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/93 "2016-03-30T23:23:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Nah. What you call speculation when it suits you is the same thing you’d call inference in another context. > > The difference between abject speculation and reasonable inference is the distance of the leap. It is a short leap from what we know to the inference that Clinton reviewed and sent sensitive documents. > > The thin soup is assuming that all of the classified documents are actually non-sensitive. How is it reasonable for you to make that assumption? Over-classification is real. It doesn’t follow that nothing classified is sensitive. It is, however, reasonable to assume that the SecState (in this case, somebody who was in the US Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee) would be smart enough to know what could be sent via email, and what could not. As you point out, all manner of silly shit is sent as classified/noforn, including such mundane stuff as “Ambassador Smith has departed post on vacation.” Is it classified? Yes, because some knucklehead put “CLASSIFIED” at the top of the cable, not because it’s actually detrimental to national security. I, for one, trust that she exercised due caution and discretion when emailing. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2016, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/94 "2016-03-30T23:44:02Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Neither is _fact_. That is the point. > > I’m not claiming to have factual evidence that Clinton never emailed something “sensitive” enough to matter. > > I am saying that it is pointless to argue that Clinton has committed disqualifying acts on the basis of _inference_. For a respectable argument, you need a foundation composed of _facts_. As much fun as it would be to delve into the epistemology by which you separate fact from inference, I think that’s a thread about Hilary Putnam, not Hillary Clinton. In the real world, you rely on inferences all the time in all your arguments, even the respectable ones. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/95 "2016-03-30T23:45:18Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > I, for one, trust that she exercised due caution and discretion when emailing. Is that trust tested at all when you learn that she was specifically advised that continuing to do this posed security risks, _she agreed_, and she continued to do so anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2016, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/96 "2016-03-31T03:56:07Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Is that trust tested at all when you learn that she was specifically advised that continuing to do this posed security risks, _she agreed_, and she continued to do so anyway? Not at all. As I said, I’ve had a lot of experience with people doing the same sorts of things. We specifically advised ambassadors that what they were doing was a security risk because it was our job to do so: err on the side of caution. They could choose to follow our advice or not, and there were no repercussions. I’m as sure that all of them knew the limits that they could go to, just like the SecState knows those same limits, and exercised due caution. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2016, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/97 "2016-04-01T04:32:11Z")
Two words: Chicken Little. Republicans have been throwing shit at Hillary Clinton for more than two decades now. Including a time when Republicans had the executive office and all of congress. If she so much as jay-walked, they would ensure that there was a hefty fine and media coverage of her blatant disregard of intersections. And how about Benghazi? Spent millions of tax-payer dollars and a ton of investigations in what was a transparent attempt to get that to stick to her as well. Until I see a mug shot and hear about charges being filed, it’s safe to assume that nothing will come from anything. I’ll just wait over here for that to happen. Any day now. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/98 "2016-04-01T04:46:12Z")
If Comey recommends an indictment, then that’s just as good as charges actually being filed. I’m sure we all know that Obama’s Justice Department will not actually file charges. But if Comey recommends charges, then it’s as if they were actually filed, since Comey is non political. I’d also note that the deception is on both sides. The investigation is in fact a criminal investigation, and the liberal argument that “Clinton is not a target” is about as relevant as the “marked classified” talking point. Criminal investigations don’t always have targets until they are complete. But there is in fact a criminal investigation around the email issue, and it’s not merely an “intelligence review” or whatever BS Clinton’s supporters are trying to feed us. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2016, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/99 "2016-04-01T05:21:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If Comey recommends an indictment, then that’s just as good as charges actually being filed. I’m sure we all know that Obama’s Justice Department will not actually file charges. But if Comey recommends charges, then it’s as if they were actually filed, since Comey is non political. > > I’d also note that the deception is on both sides. The investigation is in fact a criminal investigation [/full stop] Can you tell us what is your source of that? I want to know who to put in the iron maiden. > **[Here's what's wrong with Jeb Bush saying Hillary Clinton is under FBI...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jan/14/jeb-bush/heres-whats-wrong-jeb-bush-saying-hillary-clinton-/)** > > Editor's note: Since this story published, more information has come to light about the FBI investigation into Hillary C > [@](#): > > Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation. The inquiry to which Bush refers revolves around the private email server Clinton used while serving as secretary of state. \*\*And it is not a criminal investigation. > \*\* > Here are the facts. > > In July 2015, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent what is called a security referral to members of the executive branch. A security referral is essentially a notification that classified information might exist in a location outside of the government’s possession. In this case, the location was Clinton’s private email server. > > Soon after, the New York Times incorrectly reported that the inspectors general requested a criminal investigation into Clinton’s email use — as opposed to a security referral. But the newspaper later issued two corrections. The referral was in connection with Clinton’s account, not whether Clinton herself mishandled information, and did not allege criminal activity. > > Officials told reporters at the time that the FBI was not targeting Clinton specifically. > > As part of its inquiry, the FBI has looked into the security setup for Clinton’s home server and a thumb drive that has copies of Clinton’s work emails. But most details of the investigation have remained secret. It’s even unclear at this point whether the FBI probe is just a preliminary inquiry or if it has evolved into a true investigation, according to Politico. > [@](#): > > Our ruling > > Bush said Clinton is “under investigation with the FBI right now.” > > Not quite. The FBI is conducting a general inquiry into the security of Clinton’s private email server. \*\*But law enforcement officials have said Clinton herself is not the target of the inquiry, and it is not a full-blown criminal investigation. > \*\* > Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in an FBI investigation. But Bush goes too far to claim Clinton herself is under investigation. We rate his statement Half True. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/100 "2016-04-01T05:50:43Z")
I may have erred. Many sources are calling it a criminal investigation, based on inside sources, but they are all right-wing news sites and Fox. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=6)