# 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:** 5
**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 12, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/81 "2016-06-12T00:00:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. No. It’s the subject of debate. I hate to quote myself, but I laid it out in the thread on Hillary Clinton scandals. > [@Hillary Clinton's lies and scandals](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/147): > > …From [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/index.html) in February:… > > > [@](#): > > > > In all the cases, however – as well as Clinton’s – the information was not marked “classified” at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators. > > > > Powell noted that point in a statement on Thursday. > > > > “The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren’t,” Powell said. “If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share.” > > > > “I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified,” Powell said. > > …So retroactive classification of emails is a touchy subject. Still, do we have anything telling us whether Clinton’s were classified at the time they were sent and received or whether they were retroactive? > > Look at [this](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/22/408774111/state-department-to-release-more-clinton-emails-today) from a few days ago: > > > [@](#): > > > > Emails released Friday by the State Department appear to confirm Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she received no classified information on her personal email account while she served as secretary of state. Still, some of the emails were classified at the FBI’s request after the fact — something the White House says is not uncommon. > > Hmm…is this whole classification thing kind of murky? What does [this](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/29/four-pressing-questions-about-hillary-clintons-sta/) Politifact article say? > > > [@](#): > > > > Agencies regularly disagree about whether information should be classified, even arguing over lines within the same document, said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. If the intelligence community declares something classified from its perspective, that does not automatically trump the State Department’s own decision that the same piece of information is not classified… > > > > Ultimately, both Blanton and Aftergood said the memos tell us much more about the turf war between State and the intelligence community than they do about how Clinton handled her emails. > > > > “What leaps out at me is how dysfunctional our classification system has become, where you have different agencies and different offices arguing over the mere existence of classified information,” Aftergood said. “What does it say about Secretary Clinton? It doesn’t say anything about deliberate or negligent mishandling of classified information.” > > > > Blanton said, “The intelligence community is trying to override State Department determination. … It doesn’t say anything about Mrs. Clinton’s own activities.” > > Sorry, but I don’t think we aren’t at scandal level just yet… [QUOTE=Whak-A-Mole] 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). [/QUOTE] Your first two sentences are statements without any support. Please elaborate on why. I think Clinton, like Bush, is a mega-famous name which people would want to interfere with. So they have great incentive to maintain secure lines of communication. Likewise, I imagine that a Senator (especially a high-profile one) has great incentive to maintain those same secure lines of communication. I refer it to emphasize that this was likely a secured system. Whether it was _in fact_ secure is simply not yet known, and you (and I) would be guessing if we reached a conclusion at this point. Since you have an answer in the third sentence, please cite it. > [@](#): > > 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). I noted that her email system likely was encrypted, too. I was not aware of Guccifer - ignorance fought. I would note, however, that he apparently hacked [Sidney Blumenthal](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/03/19/guccifer-hacker-hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-george-hw-bush/2001429/), and not Clinton. I still contend that she probably had a secure system, if her personal obsession with privacy is to be believed. > [@](#): > > Have you even read the Inspector General Report on this? Ha! You taunt me by citing to a newspaper article about the report. Yes. I have read the [report](https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl). Why don’t you read it (and not someone’s opinion about it), and get back to me. ---
**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 12, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/82 "2016-06-12T00:18:48Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > No. It’s the subject of debate. I hate to quote myself, but I laid it out in the thread on Hillary Clinton scandals. You are not a source. In the world of top secret info things do not need to be labelled “secret” to be secret. For instance, imagine you are in the situation room in the White House and some info is given there. It has not been officially classified as “secret”. Do you think the people in that room can then march out to the media and tell about what they learned in that room because no one has put a "top secret"stamp on it yet? It is amazing how hard you have to work to defend her. ---
**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 12, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/83 "2016-06-12T00:22:34Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Your first two sentences are statements without any support. Please elaborate on why. Huh? No Sec State has had a private email server while they held the office. If you can prove otherwise be my guest. And why you would think a senator is privy to the same things as the Secretary of State is beyond me. Sec State is probably the most powerful position in government below the president. For a long time Sec State was second in line to the presidency. It is a position of power well past a senator. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2016, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/84 "2016-06-12T00:38:31Z")
[quote=“davida03801, post:10, topic:756984”] > [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > \*\*He’s a spokesperson and they’re very good at choosing their words carefully.[/\*\*QUOTE] > > So Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary, chose his words very carefully when he said Hillary is under criminal investigation. Got it. Josh Earnest was not speaking specifically about this investigation. He said, “And that’s why the president, when discussing this issue in each stage, has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference.” He was speaking in general terms about the principle of conducting investigations independent of political interference. > [@Munch](#): > > I don’t follow any of this anymore because it used to eat up all my time, but I’ve definitely never heard this before. Can you either expand or throw me a link? I’d be interested - because this email nonsense is annoying. The State Department [released a report](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044) where they concluded previous Secretaries of State had used private email, and received classified information. Or rather, information that was determined to now be considered classified. > [@UberArchetype](#): > > That was determined a long time ago when classified information turned up on her server. Those 2 things are mutually “inclusive:” Classified Breach + Unclassified Server = crime. It is simply, IAW 18 U.S. Code § 798, ILLEGAL for this to happen in any way, shape or form: > > [The Law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798) The law you cite states, in part: “(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—” It is arguable that placing on a private server does not meet that standard. There was no intent to provide or communicate or transmit classified material to anyone not qualified to view it. It can be poor practice and risky of breaches without being an intentional violation of that act. It also says > [@](#): > > (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section— > The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; That means it had to have been classified at the time. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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? Is your friend that you are lying to about his surprise party acting in his official capacity when you lie to him? If not, you are in the clear. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/85 "2016-06-12T01:02:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? > > Sec State is probably the most powerful position in government below the president. For a long time Sec State was second in line to the presidency. It is a position of power well past a senator. But not more powerful than the vice president. Secretary of State is fourth in line currently and was Second for only 61 years. The Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate have been in line before the Sec. of State for 165 (non continuous) years. ---
**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 12, 2016, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/86 "2016-06-12T02:07:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You are not a source. Well, then it’s a good thing my quote included a story from CNN (quoting Colin Powell about the dispute over retroactive classification of emails), an NPR story that said Clinton’s emails were retroactively classified, and a Politifact article which quoted the Director of the National Security Archive when explaining that there is disagreement between departments over what should be classified. Classification is a matter of debate within government; it is not as clear cut as you are claiming. > [@](#): > > In the world of top secret info things do not need to be labelled “secret” to be secret. Please re-read what you wrote. “[T]he world of top secret info” necessarily implies a classification has been applied. Things that are “top secret” are such because somebody deemed them classified. In the State Department, that decision maker is the Secretary of State, per [this](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information) Executive Order. > [@](#): > > Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: > > (1) the President and the Vice President; > > (2) agency heads and officials designated by the President… By the way, if you read the other parts of the order, you will note that the word used is “may”, and not “shall”, with regard to the classification of documents (i.e. a document _may_ be classified when the following conditions are met…) And, as the [Politifact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/29/four-pressing-questions-about-hillary-clintons-sta/) article in my previous post further explains (with a goofy Star Wars analogy), information may be classified in one context, and not in another > [@](#): > > As backwards as it may seem, these two assertions – Clinton’s claim that she did not have any classified information in her email and the inspector general’s claim that she did – could both be partially accurate. This is primarily because the State Department disputes whether the information was classified… > Let’s say Clinton learned a piece of information – “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad” – from an official at the CIA, who told her that information was classified as top secret. Then separately, one of Clinton’s aides within the State Department said, “I learned from one of our Imperial sources that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad.” As the secretary, Clinton had ultimate authority to declare that “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad” is unclassified – which she could do by simply leaving it without a label – because the information originated in the State Department, despite the fact that it also originated in the intelligence community. [QUOTE=Whack-A-Mole] For instance, imagine you are in the situation room in the White House and some info is given there. It has not been officially classified as “secret”. Do you think the people in that room can then march out to the media and tell about what they learned in that room because no one has put a "top secret"stamp on it yet? [/QUOTE] Do you think that discussion in the situation room are not deemed confidential by virtue of the fact that they occur in the situation room? This is akin to my earlier comment that truly secure communications were almost certainly not transmitted by email at all. > [@](#): > > It is amazing how hard you have to work to defend her. The hard work comes because people impute motives and consequences where this is no evidence of such. We simply don’t know if anything sensitive was leaked. We can infer that the government needs to improve its day-to-day communications systems, since they are not up to the task of a modern 21st century operation, but that’s about it. > [@](#): > > Huh? > > No Sec State has had a private email server while they held the office. If you can prove otherwise be my guest. :smack: I managed to miscount your sentences; I saw three when there were four - my mistake. I agree that she is the only Secretary of State to have a private server. I meant to ask for a cite on your assertion that she maintained such a server to avoid FOIA requests. > [@](#): > > And why you would think a senator is privy to the same things as the Secretary of State is beyond me. Sec State is probably the most powerful position in government below the president. For a long time Sec State was second in line to the presidency. It is a position of power well past a senator. I think we are looking at this from different perspectives. I see your point that a Secretary of State is likely to touch more sensitive information than a Senator or a Presidential Candidate. But my point was that, as world famous Hillary Clinton (who has spent years being "scandalized), she had great incentive to maintain a high secure system well before she became Secretary of State. ---
**Author:** ![T.M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ad7895/32.png) [@T.M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.M)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2016, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/87 "2016-06-12T09:31:43Z")
I think if you dig deep enough into any politicians life you will find some criminality, politics is not known to be a honest profession. ---
**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 12, 2016, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/88 "2016-06-12T14:27:21Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Please re-read what you wrote. “[T]he world of top secret info” necessarily implies a classification has been applied. Things that are “top secret” are such because somebody deemed them classified. In the State Department, that decision maker is the Secretary of State, per [this](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information) Executive Order. Classification is done by far more people than the president and sec state. The government generates a lot of information and those two would do nothing but classify documents all day if they were the only ones who could do it. To wit you for some reason did not quote the whole section (highlighting mine): > [@](#): > > Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.  > (a)   The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: >   > (1)   the President and the Vice President; > (2)   agency heads and officials designated by the President; and > **(3)   United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.** > (b)   Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level. > (c)   Delegation of original classification authority. >   > (1)   Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order. Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority. > (2)   “Top Secret” original classification authority may be delegated only by the President, the Vice President, or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section. > (3)   “Secret” or “Confidential” original classification authority may be delegated only by the President, the Vice President, an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated “Top Secret” original classification authority by the agency head. > (4)   Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position. > (5)   Delegations of original classification authority shall be reported or made available by name or position to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. > \*\*(d)   All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. \*\*Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable. > (e)   Exceptional cases. When an employee, government contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency who does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the information shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information. > > SOURCE: [Executive Order 13526 - Wikisource, the free online library](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526) Note section (d) highlighted above. Not putting a stamp on something does not magically make it not secret. Clinton knows proper procedures for classification and was trained specifically on it at least once per year. Also note the requirement for proper safeguarding of information. Safeguarding she explicitly sidestepped with her server. So, were there classified documents on her server? The government says yes and is an example that things are secret and require proper handling even if Clinton did not put a secret stamp on it herself. Consider how absurd and meaningless top secret classifications would be if all one needed to do to avoid breaking the law was to simply not put a top secret stamp on it! > [@](#): > > The department on Friday evening published its latest batch of emails from her time as America’s top diplomat. > > But The Associated Press learned ahead of the release that seven email chains would be withheld in full for containing “top secret” information. The 37 pages include messages a key intelligence official recently said concerned “special access programs” -highly restricted, classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes. > > “The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, calling the withholding of documents in full “not unusual.” That means they won’t be published online with others being released, even with blacked-out boxes. > > SOURCE: [22 Clinton emails deemed ‘top secret’ by government](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/government-declares-22-clinton-emails-top-secret/) Now that we know secret information was on Clinton’s servers and that her not stamping it such doesn’t make it magically ok (if anything she violated her duty to properly classify such documents since **Moriarty** helpfully pointed out it is her responsibility to do) we can go to the next step: > [@](#): > > Sec. 4.1. General Restrictions on Access. > > (a)   A person may have access to classified information provided that: >   > (1)   a favorable determination of eligibility for access has been made by an agency head or the agency head’s designee; > (2)   the person has signed an approved nondisclosure agreement; and > (3)   the person has a need-to-know the information. > (b)   Every person who has met the standards for access to classified information in paragraph (a) of this section shall receive contemporaneous training on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be imposed on an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. > **(c)   An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency’s control or direct that information be declassified in order to remove it from agency control.** > **(d)   Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.** > (e)   Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall ensure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch. > **(f)   Consistent with law, executive orders, directives, and regulations, an agency head or senior agency official or, with respect to the Intelligence Community, the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish uniform procedures to ensure that automated information systems, including networks and telecommunications systems, that collect, create, communicate, compute, disseminate, process, or store classified information: >   > (1)   prevent access by unauthorized persons; > (2)   ensure the integrity of the information; and > (3)   to the maximum extent practicable, use:** >   > (A)   common information technology standards, protocols, and interfaces that maximize the availability of, and access to, the information in a form and manner that facilitates its authorized use; and > (B)   standardized electronic formats to maximize the accessibility of information to persons who meet the criteria set forth in section 4.1(a) of this order. > **(g)   Consistent with law, executive orders, directives, and regulations, each agency head or senior agency official, or with respect to the Intelligence Community, the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish controls to ensure that classified information is used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed under conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons.** > > SOURCE: [Executive Order 13526 - Wikisource, the free online library](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526) So, did anyone have access to those emails who was not authorized to do so by receiving an official designation by receiving training as laid out in 4.1.b? Her IT guy didn’t meet that requirement but he certainly had access to the server. Did she meet the requirements of 4.1.g? No. Clearly her server was not sufficiently secure as required. > [@](#): > > The hard work comes because people impute motives and consequences where this is no evidence of such. We simply don’t know if anything sensitive was leaked. Fortunately we do not need motive for criminal wrongdoing here. Mishandling government secrets is a crime regardless of motivation and it is not necessary for the information to make it into the wrong hands to be guilty of mishandling documents. That said we know Guccifer got into her server so that would count as a leak I would say. > [@](#): > > :smack: I managed to miscount your sentences; I saw three when there were four - my mistake. I agree that she is the only Secretary of State to have a private server. I meant to ask for a cite on your assertion that she maintained such a server to avoid FOIA requests. We cannot read Clinton’s mind on this but we do know what she was supposed to know about these things and no one has ever accused Clinton of being stupid. From the Inspector Generals report: > [@](#): > > As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, 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.98 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. > > \ > > Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again. > > SOURCE: [https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf](https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf) (PDF) So we know Clinton is well aware of federal record keeping requirements and we know these concerns were raised and then shut down by staff. We know her server did not meet these requirements and later, when all this was coming to a head, Clinton attempted to wipe her server. ---
**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 12, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/89 "2016-06-12T15:49:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Fortunately we do not need motive for criminal wrongdoing here. Mishandling government secrets is a crime regardless of motivation and it is not necessary for the information to make it into the wrong hands to be guilty of mishandling documents. :dubious: > **[5 myths about classified information](https://www.businessinsider.com/5-myths-about-classified-information-2015-9)** > > It's not true that any mishandling of classified information is illegal. > [@](#): > > Some 2016 presidential candidates have not hesitated to label the mishandling of classified information as criminal, with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee calling Clinton’s actions “beyond outrageously illegal.” Even a New York Times article stated flatly, “Mishandling classified information is a crime.” > > In fact, in a nod to the complexities of handling classified information, the law criminalizes only violations that are “knowing,” “negligent” or the like. -Elizabeth Goitein, The Washington Post ---
**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 12, 2016, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/90 "2016-06-12T16:10:21Z")
Just to counter even more the right wing echo chamber misunderstanding (have to put a :dubious: to that, by this time one has to say that those right wing sources of information are willfully misleading their readers and viewers) that the White House did call the investigation “criminal” (it did not) there are hints that the media is finally noticing where this is likely heading and why: > **[FBI investigating drone emails as part of Clinton server probe | CNN Politics](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/clinton-server-drone-fbi/index.html)** > > A series of emails about the CIA’s drone program are among those being investigated by the FBI as part of its probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, a law enforcement official tells CNN. > [@](#): > > The FBI has not yet interviewed Clinton as part of its investigation. As CNN first reported, investigators have not found evidence to support criminal charges against Clinton and none are expected, but no final determination will be made until that interview has taken place. [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744) > [@](#): > > Asked about the presence of such information in unclassified accounts, one former federal prosecutor said: “If that is, in fact, a basis for criminal prosecution then the State Department should shut down its email system.” > > Lawyers say the broad circulation of the information State now says is classified points to another potential problem with prosecuting Clinton: the question of how many others would or should be charged in such a case. Almost all of the now-classified messages on her account were sent by other State officials. Should they be prosecuted? What about those who didn’t send her such information but wound up with that information in their work accounts and even personal ones investigators are now combing through? > > “On the theory people are putting forward for making this criminal, every single one of those people [who sent a classified message on an unclassified system] is equally guilty, probably more guilty” than Clinton, the ex-prosecutor said. “People three or four levels down, closer to the information, presumably had greater reason to know if it contained classified information … It would make no sense to aim your fire at the person at the end of the chain, instead of at the beginning of the chain.” > > In addition, attorneys noted that mishandling of diplomatic information that doesn’t have an obvious national security component to it probably couldn’t be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which is the felony statute most widely cited in discussions of the potential legal fallout of the Clinton email flap. > > So, the real focus is likely to be a narrower set of messages: 65 deemed “Secret” and 22 deemed “Top Secret.” Because of the nature of email, the actual amount of highly sensitive information is more limited than those numbers suggest. The 22 “Top Secret” messages consist of seven “threads,” presumably with the same classified subject matter discussed in each email in the thread. > > Using some of those exchanges to build a criminal case would also run into another challenge: the State Department has publicly disputed some of the intelligence community’s claims that information in Clinton’s account was highly sensitive. It seems doubtful that prosecutors would pursue charges if State Department officials are likely to contradict an intelligence agency’s assessment about the sensitivity of the records. ---
**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 12, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/91 "2016-06-12T16:29:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :dubious: > > [5 Myths About Classified Information - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/5-myths-about-classified-information-2015-9) > -Elizabeth Goitein, The Washington Post I would suggest the email server is itself proof of negligence. ---
**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 12, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/92 "2016-06-12T16:45:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I would suggest the email server is itself proof of negligence. And I would suggest that it is just your opinion, many that looked at the case, and that have more experience than me, beg to differ on how serious that was; and while it is not set in stone, I think that the reports coming from the CNN sources are more on the money of what is coming. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/93 "2016-06-12T17:15:56Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > The State Department [released a report](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044) where they concluded previous Secretaries of State had used private email, and received classified information. Or rather, information that was determined to now be considered classified. Thank you. That covers two other SoS - Powell and Rice. I wonder who the other is that ftg referenced. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/94 "2016-06-13T02:20:34Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > She basically had nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi. That was below her pay grade. No Secretary of State makes day-to-day decisions regarding embassy security staffing. If you think she did, then the real culprit is clearly Obama: he was the guy in charge, rigiht? > > Email server: Just remember, if 4 Secretary of States do this, why does Hillary get singled out? > > The Clinton Foundation: So far no one has identified a possible actual crime. E.g., person X gave $Y and return got favor Z from Hillary when she was Secretary of State. Note that under recent SCotUS rulings, there has to be explicit quid pro quo for a bribery charge to stick. I.e., someone has to have verifiable proof that an agreement occurred. In still other words: The people involved would have to be complete idiots. There isn’t even any smoke here, let alone fire. This is just sad. If you actually believe this, you need to do some research. (I know, I know… Reading ANYTHING different than what you believe is a lie or part of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Your “Clinton talking points” are standard, but they fall far short of reality. ---
**Author:** ![sweepkick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@sweepkick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweepkick)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/95 "2016-06-13T02:40:37Z")
> [@crypto](#): > > This is just sad. > > If you actually believe this, you need to do some research. (I know, I know… Reading ANYTHING different than what you believe is a lie or part of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy.” > > Your “Clinton talking points” are standard, but they fall far short of reality. Care to enighten us with something of substance? ---
**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 13, 2016, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/96 "2016-06-13T04:31:40Z")
Whack-a-Mole, you seemed to have mined my post for whatever things you could quibble with, instead of addressing all the evidence presented to you. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Classification is done by far more people than the president and sec state. The government generates a lot of information and those two would do nothing but classify documents all day if they were the only ones who could do it. I never said otherwise. My point was that, as Secretary of State, she was the final arbiter of what was classified. So, while she may delegated a lot of that responsibility to others, if _she_ said something was not classified, it was not classified. You read the executive order, but you ignored the part that I pointed out - it says documents “may” (instead of “shall”) be classified under certain conditions. It’s discretionary. Of course, if someone higher up than you exercises their discretion, you can’t override it. But if the “you” is the final decision maker, she is not going to be overruled. And, to add to my point, while you did find another section to quote, you did not follow it to the section it references (Section 5.5), which describes the punishment for failure to break the rules. > [@](#): > > Sec. 5.5. Sanctions. > > (a)   If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives has occurred, the Director shall make a report **to the head of the agency** or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, **if appropriate** , may be taken. (Emphasis added) The Secretary of State, of course, is the _head_ of the agency, and “corrective steps” are to be taken, if appropriate, making it _discretionary_ by the Secretary of State. You must understand that, since you are correct that she alone cannot handle the daily classification duties, there are lots of rules for everyone else to follow so that they stay consistent with her exercise of official authority. > [@](#): > > Note section (d) highlighted above. Not putting a stamp on something does not magically make it not secret. Clinton knows proper procedures for classification and was trained specifically on it at least once per year. Also note the requirement for proper safeguarding of information. I’m not denying that she was trained on the importance of classification. (Although the problem our government deals with is the [overclassification](http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/reducing-overclassification-through-accountability) of materials, and that is reflected by the purpose of the Executive Order). Nor am I saying that stamps are required for classified information to be classified. I am not sure what points you think you are making by pointing that out to me, but it doesn’t address the cites I showed which demonstrate that classification is a subject of debate within government. > [@](#): > > Safeguarding she explicitly sidestepped with her server. > > So, were there classified documents on her server? The government says yes and is an example that things are secret and require proper handling even if Clinton did not put a secret stamp on it herself. Consider how absurd and meaningless top secret classifications would be if all one needed to do to avoid breaking the law was to simply not put a top secret stamp on it! You continue to think you are scoring points by arguing that information can be top secret without having a stamp on it. I don’t disagree. It begs the question: Who then decides? Please answer that question so we can proceed. And for those scoring at home: I have come to discover that when you read articles reporting on her handling of classified information, you will see references to the “intelligence community”. As my PolitiFact cite upthread argued, this reflects a debate within government, and not an indictment (literal or otherwise) of Mrs. Clinton. > [@](#): > > Now that we know secret information was on Clinton’s servers and that her not stamping it such doesn’t make it magically ok (if anything she violated her duty to properly classify such documents since **Moriarty** helpfully pointed out it is her responsibility to do) we can go to the next step: > > …So, did anyone have access to those emails who was not authorized to do so by receiving an official designation by receiving training as laid out in 4.1.b? Her IT guy didn’t meet that requirement but he certainly had access to the server. Cite? I have no idea. > [@](#): > > Did she meet the requirements of 4.1.g? No. **Clearly her server was not sufficiently secure as required**. (Emphasis added) This is a conclusion without support. Please lay out what gets you to “clearly”. It seems that your argument boils down to: She had stuff she knew was classified on a server that was insecure by virtue of the fact that it had classified information on it. Do you not see that as circular? Let me try it this way: If the rule is that she could have classified information on her server, but only if her server was secure, what evidence would you present to show that it was insecure, and she should not have had classified information on it? > [@](#): > > Fortunately we do not need motive for **criminal wrongdoing here**. Mishandling government secrets is a crime regardless of motivation and it is not necessary for the information to make it into the wrong hands to be guilty of mishandling documents. (My emphasis). I’m sorry. I must have missed the criminal statute that you cited. How many years are we looking at here? > [@](#): > > That said we know Guccifer got into her server so that would count as a leak I would say. I see that you ignored my cite that showed that Guccifer got into Sidney Blumenthal’s email, not Hillary’s. “Got into her server” is factually incorrect. I suppose that Clinton should go to jail for Blumenthal’s conduct? > [@](#): > > We cannot read Clinton’s mind on this but we do know what she was supposed to know about these things and no one has ever accused Clinton of being stupid. > > From the Inspector Generals report: > > … > > So we know Clinton is well aware of federal record keeping requirements and we know these concerns were raised and then shut down by staff. **We know her server did not meet these requirements** and later, when all this was coming to a head, Clinton attempted to wipe her server. (Emphasis added). Please cite to the FBI report that we are all waiting to read. The “requirements” you are relying upon say that the system has to be secure. If you read the actual OIG report, you’d know that Federal Regulations actually contemplate the use of private email systems in government. Except for the fact that this arose out of an attempt to find Hillary Clinton criminally responsible for something (remember, this arose out of Benghazi investigations, which are another ridiculous travesty of time and money), it is _totally unremarkable_ in government. Does that speak to a concern about our government’s technology? Yes. Is it criminal? Cite the law…I dare you. ---
**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 13, 2016, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/97 "2016-06-13T04:39:22Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Thank you. That covers two other SoS - Powell and Rice. I wonder who the other is that ftg referenced. The Office of Inspector General report also outs John Kerry. Ho hum. > [@](#): > > Secretary Kerry (February 1, 2013 - Present) Secretary Kerry uses a Department email account on OpenNet and stated that, while he has used a personal email account to conduct official business, he has done so infrequently… Email started under Madeline Albright, but she never used it. Rice rarely did, but Powell apparently encouraged it. He requested a line into his office so he could hook up his laptop, since he couldn’t email outside the department on the computers they had. ---
**Author:** ![Smitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Smitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smitty)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/98 "2016-06-13T12:32:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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? No, because his birthday party is not a “matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.” In other words, it is illegal to lie to him when he is acting as an agent of the United States on official business. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/99 "2016-06-13T14:09:10Z")
> [@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. Since her boss at the time of the email incident has already endorsed her for the position of POTUS it would be a stretch to think that he would allow charges to be pursued against her. There is now no way this could go to trial before the election, after the election Obama could pardon whether she won or not and there is a thing anyone could do to Clinton or Obama. This whole email thing is just political fodder; it means nothing other than a talking point. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984/100 "2016-06-13T20:16:53Z")
**Si Amigo** : Actually, no, Obama cannot thwart the investigation. That’s what got Richard Nixon removed from office. (Although GWB got away with firing a bunch of Federal attorneys investigating corrupt Congressmen of his own party, so…who knows.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984.md?page=6)