# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/121 "2016-04-06T20:33:28Z")
The fact that she went to so much effort in the beginning belies the excuse that her home server was just ‘convenient’. She either knew she was taking big risks, or she’s too stupid to be president. If she knew she was taking risks and still went to extraordinary lengths to avoid using government mail services, you really have to step back and ask why. The most charitable explanation is that she thought Republicans would go on endless FOIA expeditions, and she wasn’t about to let them get away with it. The least charitable explanation is that she was avoiding FOIA because she was up to something shady, possibly involving the Clinton Foundation. The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. It doesn’t take that many agents just to go through the E-mails, so I am sure they have agents following up chains of information, trying to find out where the classified info came from, who else might know about it, etc. If it’s true that SAP information was found on her hard drive with passages word-for-word from the original documents, then someone committed a felony transcribing it. I wouldn’t be surprised if multiple indictments come out of this, including people who we don’t even know about yet. Whether Hillary will be one of them is an open question. Hillary seems to me to be very Nixonian in disposition. Nixon was smart and pretty effective, but his undoing was his personal paranoia and secretive disposition, coupled with a ‘rules don’t apply to me when I am right’ attitude. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/122 "2016-04-06T20:34:38Z")
It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/123 "2016-04-06T20:38:54Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. Actually, it’s apparently more like [twelve](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026). ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/124 "2016-04-06T20:40:21Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. … Uh, no. > [@](#): > > On Monday, it was reported that 147 FBI agents have been working on the review of Hillary Clinton‘s email server, a report which I immediately called BS on loudly and thoroughly. As the week progressed, the reporting caught up with what was already obvious, and it turns out there are only about 12 agents working on it, maybe. On Thursday night, All In with Chris Hayes host Chris Hayes did a segment debunking the reporting: > … > **[Why Didn’t MSNBC Liberals Call BS on 147 FBI Agents Investigating Hillary Email?](https://www.mediaite.com/online/why-didnt-msnbc-liberals-call-bs-on-147-fbi-agents-investigating-hillary-email/)** > > On Monday, it was reported that 147 FBI agents have been working on the review of Hillary Clinton's email server, a report which I immediately called BS on loudly and thoroughly. As the week progressed, the reporting caught up with what was already... ---
**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 6, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/125 "2016-04-06T20:44:06Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The investigation into this supposedly involves 147 FBI agents. It doesn’t take that many agents just to go through the E-mails, so I am sure they have agents following up chains of information, trying to find out where the classified info came from, who else might know about it, etc. If it’s true that SAP information was found on her hard drive with passages word-for-word from the original documents, then someone committed a felony transcribing it. > > I wouldn’t be surprised if multiple indictments come out of this, including people who we don’t even know about yet. Whether Hillary will be one of them is an open question. So it follows that if that number of agents involved was pulled by the media from their nether regions then it is less likely that the FBI is not doing more than what they told us before no? Well…: > **[Washington Post Corrects Faulty Report That Nearly 150 FBI Agents Are...](https://www.mediamatters.org/breitbart-news/washington-post-corrects-faulty-report-nearly-150-fbi-agents-are-investigating)** > [@](#): > > Washington Post Corrects Faulty Report That Nearly 150 FBI Agents Are Investigating > The Post Now Reports “The Number Of FBI Personnel Involved Is Fewer Than 50” > > The Washington Post has retracted its anonymously sourced claim that 147 FBI agents are detailed to the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, and is now reporting that the real number is fewer than 50. Media outlets trumpeted the Post’s report of the supposedly “staggering” number of FBI agents working the investigation as bad news for Clinton. > > On March 27, the Post published a 5,000-word article detailing the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email and personal Blackberry device during her time as secretary of state. The original story reported: “One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey.” > > The Post’s claim spread throughout the media, with outlets frequently highlighting the 147 figure in their headlines and some using the report to attack Clinton. National Review termed the figure “a staggering deployment of manpower,” while Breitbart News celebrated the “FBI recently kick[ing] its investigation into high gear.” The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza highlighted the “eye-popping” 147 figure by commenting, “W-H-A-T?”, adding that the reported number of agents seemed “like a ton for a story that Clinton has always insisted was really, at heart, a right-wing Republican creation,” while MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough called the number the “worst kept secret in DC for months.” The story was also highlighted in several segments on Fox News. > > But the next day, Politico reported that the Post’s story might be inaccurate. According to Politico, an official close to the investigation refuted the Post’s report, saying that “The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server” and that the Post’s “number is greatly exaggerated.” > > The Washington Post issued a correction to both their initial story on March 29, explaining that they incorrectly reported “that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation” and that multiple U.S. law enforcement officials “have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high” and the actual number of “FBI personnel involved in the case is fewer than 50”: It remains a security audit or review made by the FBI that is not a criminal investigation. So, yeah, it would still be surprising to see recommendations (the FBI can not indict people as it was pointed many times before) to indict. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/126 "2016-04-06T20:46:18Z")
Interesting. I am pretty sure I read that in the Washington Post’s long article about it. I stand corrected. Edit after seeing Gigobuster’s post: I guess I did see it there. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/127 "2016-04-06T20:50:17Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > …The most charitable explanation is that she thought Republicans would go on endless FOIA expeditions, and she wasn’t about to let them get away with it. … No, the most charitable explanation is that she saw no compelling reason to change the emails system she was already using. I’m not saying this was the right decision, but it doesn’t require a deliberate attempt on her part to stifle Republican inquiries. Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system _after_ she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office? ---
**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:** [April 7, 2016, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/128 "2016-04-07T01:56:01Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system _after_ she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office? I think you have that right. She continued to use the system she had used during the campaign, which had been set up even before that. ---
**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 7, 2016, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/129 "2016-04-07T07:10:46Z")
Want to see why I don’t care? > [@sleestak](#): > > One of the problems is that too many people kowtow to people like Clinton. Instead of making a stand on what is right too many people get all impressed with titles and do things that they know they shouldn’t. > > And Clinton knows this. Clinton also knows that lying works. So instead of doing things the right way she has (and will continue) to do things her way regardless of how stupid it is. This will go on until there are real consequences for her actions. This. Shrill, Clinton bashing. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Benghazi. The Clinton Foundation. Vince Foster. Yeah, very familiar that sound. Let me know when the sky is actually falling. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/130 "2016-04-07T11:37:37Z")
Since we now know that the investigation won’t be complete until after she’s nominated, and you really don’t care what she did(and many Clinton supporters share your view), then if she is indicted, or the damage is so bad from the final report that her candidacy is sunk, that means I’ll hear no whining from you about a replacement candidate? Because once she’s nominated, she’s the candidate. No backsies. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/131 "2016-04-07T11:41:04Z")
A man can dream. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2016, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/132 "2016-04-07T11:46:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Since we now know that the investigation won’t be complete until after she’s nominated, and you really don’t care what she did(and many Clinton supporters share your view), then if she is indicted, or the damage is so bad from the final report that her candidacy is sunk, that means I’ll hear no whining from you about a replacement candidate? Because once she’s nominated, she’s the candidate. No backsies. How do we know that the investigation won’t be complete until after she’s nominated? Share your time machine, please. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/133 "2016-04-07T12:31:05Z")
Comey didn’t say for sure that it would be after the convention, but he did say there’s no pressure to get it done by then. > **[FBI head: No pressure to finish Clinton probe by convention](https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/275169-fbi-head-no-pressure-to-finish-clinton-probe-by-convention/)** > > The FBI wants to do the investigation “well” and “promptly,” James Comey said. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/134 "2016-04-07T12:38:26Z")
Frankly, I don’t care if she’s convicted of killing Vince Foster before or after the convention. She’s STILL better than anyone who’s ever been running on the Republican side this cycle. Anyone. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2016, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/135 "2016-04-07T12:47:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Comey didn’t say for sure that it would be after the convention, but he did say there’s no pressure to get it done by then. > > [http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/275169-fbi-head-no-pressure-to-finish-clinton-probe-by-convention](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/275169-fbi-head-no-pressure-to-finish-clinton-probe-by-convention) So he pretty much said nothing, then. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/136 "2016-04-07T14:02:54Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Or am I missing something? Is there any evidence that Hilary set up this personal system _after_ she became SOS, as an alternative to the official channels would have been offered when she got in office? > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I think you have that right. She continued to use the system she had used during the campaign, which had been set up even before that. I think this is partially true and partially false. The domain she used was set up immediately prior to becoming Secretary of State (registered on 1/13/09, the day of her Senate confirmation hearings). [https://who.is/whois/clintonemail.com](https://who.is/whois/clintonemail.com) Having said that, there was a prior email server set up at their home (used by Bill Clinton). They replaced that prior to becoming Secretary of State with a server that her presidential campaign had been using. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html) > [@](#): > > For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house. Seems like the timeline is that Bill Clinton had a private server installed at their Chappaqua home for his use. Hillary Clinton’s campaign set up a private server for her campaigns use. When preparing to become Secretary of State, they took her campaign’s server and installed it at their Chappaqua home, replacing Bill’s old server, and registered a new domain to use. So it’s definitely not true to say she was just continuing to use the same setup she was using before as some matter of convenience. It is true that she (and Bill Clinton) used private servers before and that they were essentially updated and upgraded prior to taking on the position. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/137 "2016-04-07T16:40:26Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > So it’s definitely not true to say she was just continuing to use the same setup she was using before as some matter of convenience. It depends on what you mean by “same setup.” If you mean an unsecured Blackberry using a personal email server located at her home, then the setup didn’t change, right? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/138 "2016-04-07T19:53:51Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It depends on what you mean by “same setup.” If you mean an unsecured Blackberry using a personal email server located at her home, then the setup didn’t change, right? Well, wasn’t she using a personal server located somewhere other than her home during her campaign. From what I’ve read, I think Bill Clinton was using a personal email server (different from the Hillary Clinton campaign server) located at their home. Not sure where her server was located, maybe where ever her campaign headquarters was located. Re-quoting from here. > [@](#): > > For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house. This gets a little ridiculous though. When average people talk about keeping their same email for convenience they would mean the same email address. She clearly was using a different email address since they didn’t even register the domain until her confirmation hearings. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/139 "2016-04-07T19:57:00Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Well, wasn’t she using a personal server located somewhere other than her home during her campaign. From what I’ve read, I think Bill Clinton was using a personal email server (different from the Hillary Clinton campaign server) located at their home. Not sure where her server was located, maybe where ever her campaign headquarters was located. Re-quoting from here. I don’t read your quote as saying they moved the server from somewhere else to her home, but even if that’s so, I’m not sure it matters to the lay definition of “same setup.” See below. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > When average people talk about keeping their same email for convenience they would mean the same email address. She clearly was using a different email address since they didn’t even register the domain until her confirmation hearings. I disagree. When people talk about keeping the same setup convenience, they aren’t talking about domain names. They mean her continuing to use an unsecured Blackberry accessing some personal server, as distinct from PCs accessing a government server. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/140 "2016-04-07T22:15:45Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t read your quote as saying they moved the server from somewhere else to her home, but even if that’s so, I’m not sure it matters to the lay definition of “same setup.” See below. I don’t see how it can be read any other way. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I disagree. When people talk about keeping the same setup convenience, they aren’t talking about domain names. They mean her continuing to use an unsecured Blackberry accessing some personal server, as distinct from PCs accessing a government server. This seems incredibly strange to me. What would inconvenience you more, if your work email address changed or if they swapped out servers and your email address stayed the same? I am guessing 99.9% of people would be far more inconvenienced by having to change their email address than any change to the server. Further, I think you are confusing the issue. She could have still used a Blackberry to access her email even if she was using a government address. She wasn’t supposed to use a smart phone of any type in certain secure locations. Further, she wasn’t supposed to send classified information in email regardless of whether it was a personal email address or a state address. The fact is that when you are handling classified material there are going to be some inconveniences involved. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=8)