# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 81
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-being-criminally-investigated/756984)._