# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/161 "2016-06-07T23:14:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Actually we do know because the IG found them. They were emails about her email system and her concerns for her privacy. At least it wasn’t government business. Way to move the goalposts. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/162 "2016-06-07T23:37:54Z")
Those are government business because they dealt with an official issue: her need to get a State Dept email address. But that brings up the other problem: she doesn’t get to decide what’s personal and what’s government. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/163 "2016-06-07T23:54:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Those are government business because they dealt with an official issue: her need to get a State Dept email address. > > But that brings up the other problem: she doesn’t get to decide what’s personal and what’s government. But Republican Congressmen do? How do we know what they use their private email accounts for? Shouldn’t we demand to see their email too, just in case? ---
**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 7, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/164 "2016-06-07T23:55:09Z")
The problem with our current partisan media environment is that Democrats don’t bother to learn the details of democratic scandals and vice versa. Many of the Dem posters in this thread don’t know the actual factual details of the email controversy. It reminds me about how Republicans didn’t know what all the talk of yellow cake was about. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/165 "2016-06-07T23:57:28Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But Republican Congressmen do? How do we know what they use their private email accounts for? Shouldn’t we demand to see their email too, just in case? Does the Federal Records Act cover Congress? > **[Federal Records Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Records_Act)** > > The Federal Records Act of 1950 is a United States federal law that was enacted in 1950. It provides the legal framework for federal records management, including record creation, maintenance, and disposition. > The Federal Records Act was created following the recommendations of the Hoover Commission (1947-49). > It implemented one of the reforms proposed by Emmett Leahy in his October 1948 report on Records Management in the United States Government, with the goal of ensuring that all federal d... From the wikipedia article, it seems to only apply to federal agencies, which would not include the President and VP, who I believe do have the right of executive privilege. ---
**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, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/166 "2016-06-08T00:04:38Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The problem with our current partisan media environment is that Democrats don’t bother to learn the details of democratic scandals and vice versa. Many of the Dem posters in this thread don’t know the actual factual details of the email controversy. It reminds me about how Republicans didn’t know what all the talk of yellow cake was about. Oh, we knew, we were just inclined to view the controversy giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. “Britain has learned” pretty much gave Bush total deniability if it was wrong, but that got blown out of the water by the Wilson/Plame issue, which simply could not be justified at all. But the thing is, when you support someone a lot, you’ll latch onto anything you can and for a lot of us it was Joe Wilson, whose investigation basically consisted of asking around. It almost seemed like Plame had sent him there because the couple wanted a certain result. For a long time those of us who supported Bush thought that the State Dept and CIA bureaucracy were intentionally trying to kneecap the President. But at some point the scandals just become too numerous and actions become too indefensible. The administration revealing the name of a covert agent in retaliation for Joe Wilson going to the media can’t be excused under any conditions. Clinton’s sins are much smaller in scale, but still pretty inexcusable. It doesn’t matter how much Republicans have been out to get her, her obsession with secrecy borders on criminal. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/167 "2016-06-08T00:08:00Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Many of the Dem posters in this thread don’t know the actual factual details of the email controversy. What don’t we know that matters? And what \*do \*we know that you would prefer we didn’t? ---
**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, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/168 "2016-06-08T00:09:49Z")
Why don’t you summarize what you know, and be honest, have you explored this controversy or just dismissed it, only absorbing the occasional headline? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/169 "2016-06-08T00:18:01Z")
Or you could answer the question. \*If \*you 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, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/170 "2016-06-08T00:41:56Z")
I’ve been. She set up the server to evade the Freedom of Information Act, she violated the Federal Records Act by destroying work related emails, and she decided at her discretion what was work related and what wasn’t, which you can be sure an underling wouldn’t have gotten away with. Further, she lied pretty much every step of the way and then spun the rather damning IG report as an exoneration. Because she thinks you’re stupid. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/171 "2016-06-08T01:09:53Z")
Fact count in that post: Zero. Amusing as usual, though. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/172 "2016-06-08T01:14:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’ve been. She set up the server to evade the Freedom of Information Act Do we know this to be true? I’ve endeavored to be honest about her activities, but this sounds like speculation. Is there anything to show why she set up the server? > [@](#): > > she violated the Federal Records Act by destroying work related emails Did she (I truly don’t know)? From your own Wikipedia link about the act, it sounds like electronic records were added in 2014. She stopped being Secretary of State in 2013 [QUOTE=Wikipedia] In December 2014, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 was signed into law by President Barack Obama.[2][3] This bipartisan act, which followed the 2011 President’s Memorandum on Managing Government Records, modernizes the Federal Records Act.[2][3] The act expressly expands the definition of federal records to include electronic records (the first change to the definition of “Federal record” since the enactment of the act in 1950). [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Adaher] and she decided at her discretion what was work related and what wasn’t, which you can be sure an underling wouldn’t have gotten away with. [/QUOTE] Can you show me where this is not allowed? As Secretary of State, I know that she has wide discretion on what classification to apply to information. But does she have discretion to delete personal emails (i.e. if she emailed her daughter about her grandchild’s birthday, is she able to delete it, or does that email need to go through some sort of review process before it is deemed not work-related?) > [@](#): > > Further, she lied pretty much every step of the way and then spun the rather damning IG report as an exoneration. I do agree that she has been cagey. However, I sympathize with her frustration, given that her predecessor was the first Secretary of State to request an internet connection in his office once he realized that he could not email people outside of the department on the government intra-net. She didn’t initiate the private email use (nor is it necessarily unprecedented to have a private server; [Jeb Bush](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeb-bush-owns-his-email-server-too/) used one while Governor of Florida). And given that it recently came out that the government was still using old style floppy disks for nuclear weapons, I do honestly wonder how modern and sophisticated the government’s own system was. > [@](#): > > Because she thinks you’re stupid. I know that you are editorializing, but I don’t see why this is the only explanation. ---
**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, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/173 "2016-06-08T01:19:13Z")
Because there is no way one can read any media summary of the IG report and conclude that the most important point is that what she did was just like what everyone else did. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/174 "2016-06-08T02:07:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Because there is no way one can read any media summary of the IG report and conclude that the most important point is that what she did was just like what everyone else did. Why just read media summaries? The [report](https://www.scribd.com/doc/313806901/State-Dept-IG-Report-on-Email-Records-Management-and-Cybersecurity-Requirements) is online. Skimming it again, I do note that it does answer some questions. For one, the server had existed from her time in the Senate. > [@](#): > > Secretary Clinton employed a personal email system to conduct business during her tenure in the United States Senate and her 2008 Presidential campaign. She continued to use personal email throughout her term as Secretary, relying on an account maintained on a private server, predominantly through mobile devices. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the server was located in her New York residence. And while President Obama did sign a law in 2014 expressly clarifying that email records are included, they were reasonably included previously. So I was wrong on that point (see Dopers? You can say you were wrong and your posting privileges won’t be revoked or anything!) > [@](#): > > NARA promulgates regulations providing guidance to agencies on implementation of the Federal Records Act and recordkeeping obligations more generally. Since 1990, the regulations issued by NARA have explained that the medium of the record may be “paper, film, disk, or other physical type or form” and that the method of recording may be “manual, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or any other combination of these or other technologies.”…In 1995, NARA amended the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm that “messages created or received on electronic mail systems may meet the definition of record.” But those same regulations seem to acknowledge that private email use is allowed (as long as the records are preserved) > [@](#): > > The regulations also referenced the use of electronic communications systems external to the Government, indicating that “agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that Federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system.” Further, the report notes that in 2009, the Code of Federal Regulations was changed to say that “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record system.” And the report later confirms that the use of private email was permissible. > [@](#): > > As discussed earlier in this report, laws and regulations did not prohibit employees from using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official Department business. So is the scandal that she used private email, or is the scandal that she didn’t initially print and catalogue the private emails with the government? If the scandal is the failure to print and file the records with the government, then we should certainly throw the book at her. What sort of punishment is she facing? > [@](#): > > …S/ES staff told OIG that employees in the Office of the Secretary have printed and filed such emails only sporadically. In its discussions with OIG, NARA stated that this lack of compliance exists across the government. Although the Department is aware of the failure to print and file, the FAM contains no explicit penalties for lack of compliance, and the Department has never proposed discipline against an employee for failure to comply. I’m guessing that an indictment is not forthcoming, especially since this is endemic across government. > [@](#): > > According to a 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, most agencies do not prioritize records management, as evidenced by lack of staff and budget resources, absence of up-to-date policies and procedures, lack of training, and lack of accountability. In its most recent annual assessment of records management, NARA identified similar weaknesses across the Federal Government with regard to electronic records in particular. NARA reported that 80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records, reflecting serious challenges handling vast amounts of email, integrating records management functionality into electronic systems, and adapting to the changing technological and regulatory environments. But, it’s Hillary. Just because other people do it, too, doesn’t make it right! She didn’t properly print and catalogue her emails, and that is scandalous! The report says so! > [@](#): > > Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure. As for the actual conclusion of the report > [@](#): > > Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. Now, it should be noted that Clinton is criticized for not having her private email system “vetted” by the government. But I’ll let somebody else take a stab at quoting those critiques. From where I sit, this is not such a severe breach of protocol that it warrants disqualification to be President. ---
**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, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/175 "2016-06-08T02:34:47Z")
As seen, I still expect that while a lot of Republicans will still swallow the idea from congress Republicans that Hillary will be indicted or arrested when the most likely outcome comes, that there will not be any serious charges, I do think that there will a good number of Republicans that will once again realize that they were duped by the Republican “leadership”. What about the Libertarians? > **[Libertarian VP Candidate Blows Republicans' Email Hopes To Smithereens](https://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans)** > > Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld explained why nothing will ever come of the GOP witchhunt. > [@](#): > > Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld joined Chuck Todd for an exclusive interview to launch their quixotic campaign to woo the Republican Party into Libertarian ranks. > > … > > But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump’s talking points about Hillary Clinton’s email. > > Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, **Weld replied, “I’m speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There’s no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there’s no indictment.”** Well, at least they are getting one thing right! 🙂 ---
**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:** [June 8, 2016, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/176 "2016-06-08T03:34:15Z")
There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed. ---
**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, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/177 "2016-06-08T03:56:51Z")
Moriarty, taking a step back from going after Clinton, she’s had two main defenses which are perfectly valid, IF she does something about those two problems as President: 1. Everyone does it. That has to stop. Government transparency demands records be retained, plus it’s just sensible even if the public doesn’t get to see it. 2. Overclassification. Nothing chaps my ass more than hearing Presidents complain about things they have the power to change. If State overclassifies things, issue new guidelines! You can do that, you’re the President! Another example is when the President said in his SOTU that the government had all kinds of contradictory and duplicative rules for tangerines or some such. Wow, if only there was someone in charge of the executive branch who could put a stop to duplicative or contradictory rulemaking. Fix this shit! This is why few respect government’s competence. ---
**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, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/178 "2016-06-08T04:53:00Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed. As even the FBI told us that Hillary Clinton is not the target of the security review, I have to agree with Weld. > **[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 ---
**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 8, 2016, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/179 "2016-06-08T04:56:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As seen, I still expect that while a lot of Republicans will still swallow the idea from congress Republicans that Hillary will be indicted or arrested when the most likely outcome comes, that there will not be any serious charges, I do think that there will a good number of Republicans that will once again realize that they were duped by the Republican “leadership”. > > What about the Libertarians? > > > [@](#): > > > > Weld replied, “I’m speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There’s no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there’s no indictment.” > > [Libertarian VP Candidate Blows Republicans' Email Hopes To Smithereens | Crooks and Liars](http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans) > Well, at least they are getting one thing right! 🙂 You can bet that line is already cued up in the Clinton’s team response to Trump’s “major” speech next week about Bill and Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2016, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514/180 "2016-06-08T11:43:10Z")
Unless you’re a ham sandwich. There can certainly be charges and indictments that can’t hold up under the law, if the prosecutor is on a political vendetta. But that isn’t the case here either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-changed-my-mind-about-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-so-should-you/750514.md?page=10)