# Is Hillary Clinton being criminally investigated? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2016, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984 "2016-06-10T00:44:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/61 "2016-06-11T09:11:50Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > Whatever. Excellent summary of the thread. Thank you, **UberArchetype**. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/62 "2016-06-11T13:08:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > GIGO just unintentionally backed up my argument about some information being treated as classified automatically. Did you miss the part that said “as required by the Foreign Affairs Manual”? It’s not “automatically” ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/63 "2016-06-11T13:36:50Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > That’s not correct, per the law you quote. It’s not all classified information that’s illegal, it’s only certain categories of classified information. And those categories aren’t supposed to go through email to start with. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/64 "2016-06-11T15:02:12Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > How are you defining “criminally investigated”? Any investigation by any law-enforcement body? An investigation that has led to criminal charges being filed? A Congressional hearing? > > Those answers are Yes, No, and Yes. I could be wrong but I think there is a difference to be had. In one sense the police and FBI only ever follow what they believe to be criminal activity. I think what they are dancing around here is that no grand jury has been convened which can compel testimony. Right now, if the FBI knock on your door and want to question you about Clinton’s emails, you can shut the door in their face. You can’t do that when a formal grand jury inquiry is on and they send you a subpoena to testify. Nor is the FBI formally arresting people and interrogating them in an official manner. So far it is just, “Hey, we’d like to ask you some questions…are you cool with that?” All that said they have offered immunity in some cases to get people to talk so it’s borderline it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/65 "2016-06-11T15:29:20Z")
Help me understand something: Given Hillary’s status as a major presidential candidate, wouldn’t any criminal conviction over an email scandal probably be given a light sentence or no sentence anyway? The judges would probably not want to take down someone who is the nominee of a major political party. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/66 "2016-06-11T15:32:46Z")
As an aside where is the line drawn that I could be held criminally liable for obstructing justice? I mean it is not against the law to lie except in special circumstances. I can lie to anyone on this message board and it is not a criminal matter. So if police/FBI come over and want to ask me some questions can I lie to them too without criminal repercussions? I guess I am asking is where is the line drawn? I can lie to you but if you are an FBI agent when does lying to you become a crime? Further, does the agent have to let you know that you are now in “lying can get you sent to jail” territory before they ask you questions? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/67 "2016-06-11T15:35:24Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Help me understand something: > > Given Hillary’s status as a major presidential candidate, wouldn’t any criminal conviction over an email scandal probably be given a light sentence or no sentence anyway? The judges would probably not want to take down someone who is the nominee of a major political party. I theory justice is applied equally and without regard to position. If you do “X” crime you get sentenced the same as anyone else who did “X” crime. The reality has been that justice works differently for those in power and it is far more difficult to hold them accountable for their actions. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/68 "2016-06-11T16:27:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I theory… Missed edit: \*In theory… ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/69 "2016-06-11T17:53:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As an aside where is the line drawn that I could be held criminally liable for obstructing justice? > > I mean it is not against the law to lie except in special circumstances. I can lie to anyone on this message board and it is not a criminal matter. > > So if police/FBI come over and want to ask me some questions can I lie to them too without criminal repercussions? > > I guess I am asking is where is the line drawn? I can lie to you but if you are an FBI agent when does lying to you become a crime? Further, does the agent have to let you know that you are now in “lying can get you sent to jail” territory before they ask you questions? You’re in big trouble. > [@](#): > > Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is. > > Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is “within the jurisdiction” of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be “material” this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed.” United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is “within the jurisdiction” of a government agency. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable. > > - See more at: [http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html#sthash.0EjaT6aI.dpuf](http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html#sthash.0EjaT6aI.dpuf) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/70 "2016-06-11T19:17:10Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It doesn’t appear we have lost anything of value. Huh? An insult—from a Mod, no less—in GD? How’s that happen? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/71 "2016-06-11T19:23:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? An insult—from a Mod, no less—in GD? How’s that happen? He’s saying **Uber’s** _posts_ are lacking usefulness. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/72 "2016-06-11T19:35:11Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You’re in big trouble. So if my friend is an FBI agent lying to him/her is by definition a crime? For instance if I am throwing them a surprise party tomorrow for their birthday and they ask me what’s up tomorrow and I say “nothing” I am now guilty of a crime? I realize no one would try to prosecute but as the laws are written that is literally a crime? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/73 "2016-06-11T20:35:27Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > He’s saying **Uber’s** _posts_ are lacking usefulness. He’s say they’re lacking _value_. But he’s saying more, that his time lacks any value. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/74 "2016-06-11T21:50:47Z")
I would say that when an event has been investigated by several Congressional Committees, each coming to the conclusion that they cannot find evidence of a crime, when some Congresscritter opens one more “investigation” into the same purported “crime,” we might regard that investigation as criminal. (It might not rise to the level of a statutory offense, but it would certainly be a “crime” in popular speech, since it is stealing from the time, money, and energy of Congress to pursue a false claim for political purposes.) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/75 "2016-06-11T22:17:47Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I would say that when an event has been investigated by several Congressional Committees, each coming to the conclusion that they cannot find evidence of a crime, when some Congresscritter opens one more “investigation” into the same purported “crime,” we might regard that investigation as criminal. (It might not rise to the level of a statutory offense, but it would certainly be a “crime” in popular speech, since it is stealing from the time, money, and energy of Congress to pursue a false claim for political purposes.) I agree except in this case the issue is being investigated by the FBI and not some bullshit congressional committee and the internal State Department investigation suggests this was not kosher. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/76 "2016-06-11T22:53:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? An insult—from a Mod, no less—in GD? How’s that happen? When the exchange occurred, the thread was in General Questions, not Great Debates. Just for information… ---
**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 11, 2016, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/77 "2016-06-11T22:57:05Z")
Haven’t we already gone over this classification nonsense already? The government retroactively classifies stuff all the time. These articles that breathlessly report the possibility of “classified information” miss the most important point; as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was the arbiter of the State Department classification system. What creates “controversy” is the fact that other agencies also have classification systems, and there may be dispute between departments about what classification levels to apply. This is rampant in government. Is it a bureaucratic nightmare? It sure sounds like it. Is it a scandal specific to Hillary Clinton? Hardly. Is it a crime? No fucking way. So what is the FBI doing? I presume looking to see if anything got out. And, until they conclude, all we know is that one Secretary of State can produce 55,000 pages of emails in 4 years, which means our government has a serious data management problem. I actually have sympathy for Clinton at this point. For one, let’s remember that it is not unprecedented for a high profile politician to have their own server. Jeb Bush had one as Governor of Florida. Hillary had used hers while a Senator, and during her run for the Presidency in 2008. If she’s as obsessed with privacy as her detractors believe, you can reasonably expect that it was fairly well encrypted. And it was located in a house protected by the Secret Service, so it was certainly physically safe. On top of that, the U.S. government is notoriously behind the times with its technology in day-to-day operations. Yes, we are incredibly high tech in certain areas. But it seems like it is also incredibly archaic in its most basic tasks, like daily communication. So the Blackberry she had come to rely on (which was being securely monitored) made the most sense to a person who probably was constantly working, from the time she got up until she went to sleep. And I always feel it misses another important point: this was NOT her only means of communication. The State Department does have ways to communicate securely which bypasses email entirely. And the obligation to keep that secret may in fact exist. I imagine Hillary screaming at the news reports, “If you only knew how secure communications were!” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/78 "2016-06-11T23:15:47Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Haven’t we already gone over this classification nonsense already? The government retroactively classifies stuff all the time. These articles that breathlessly report the possibility of “classified information” miss the most important point; as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was the arbiter of the State Department classification system. What creates “controversy” is the fact that other agencies also have classification systems, and there may be dispute between departments about what classification levels to apply. As I understand it “secret” stuff is secret even without an official stamp (as in legally it does not need a stamp to be deemed “secret”). Those dealing with this information are well aware of this. Sec State should be aware of that more than anyone because she/he will often see raw information before some Sec-State-drone has had a chance to put a “secret” stamp on it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/79 "2016-06-11T23:22:09Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > For one, let’s remember that it is not unprecedented for a high profile politician to have their own server. Jeb Bush had one as Governor of Florida. Hillary had used hers while a Senator, and during her run for the Presidency in 2008. If she’s as obsessed with privacy as her detractors believe, you can reasonably expect that it was fairly well encrypted. And it was located in a house protected by the Secret Service, so it was certainly physically safe. Wow…this is just so wrong on so many levels. No Sec State has ever had a private email server before her. Comparing her to the governor of Florida is apples and oranges. Using a private email server as senator is also not the same thing as using one as Sec State. Also one has to wonder why she even wanted to use one (answer…she wanted to avoid FOIA requests…so much for transparency). Also being physically protected by the SS is absolutely no guard against being hacked and we know for a fact she was hacked (see: Guccifer). Have you even read the [Inspector General Report](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html) on this? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2016, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/80 "2016-06-11T23:38:09Z")
It’s not like the FBI and other alphabet soup agencies haven’t had time to build a criminal case, and it’s not like this is sitting around on some flunkie detective’s desk. This is a high priority case with all of the resources of the federal government at its disposal and they’ve probably had a good year to investigate. They’re not interested in prosecuting Hillary Clinton - not unless someone digs up something that can’t be overlooked. As I’ve said on another thread, though, that doesn’t mean she’ll escape unscathed. The republicans have all sorts of logs and emails in their possession now, so basically they can cherry pick which ones they want the public to see, and they can choose when to release them. And that’s going to be an ongoing problem for Hillary: the appearance of impropriety. Maybe at some point, though, she becomes inoculated to it all, like Trump’s insensitive remarks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984.md?page=5)