# It's getting worse for Hillary **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 12, 2015, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653 "2015-08-12T13:51:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/201 "2015-09-28T03:41:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The email story only goes into the background if there’s nothing new to report. Then why hasn’t it? > [@](#): > > Thus my argument that she needs to get it all out there rather than lying and then creating a headline when she gets caught weeks later. What lies? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/202 "2015-09-28T03:42:41Z")
Such as, turning over all of her work email. The newest story is that there were some emails that she didn’t turn over that were in fact work related. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/203 "2015-09-28T04:05:34Z")
Repeat: What lies are you accusing her of telling? You’re quite fond of loosely throwing that claim out there. Isn’t it about time to say what convinced you of it? :dubious: What lies? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/204 "2015-09-28T04:12:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Repeat: What lies are you accusing her of telling? > > You’re quite fond of loosely throwing that claim out there. Isn’t it about time to say what convinced you of it? :dubious: > > What lies? Here’s one. Hillary claimed numerous times, as late as last Sunday in a CBS interview that she turned over ALL the work emails from her server. Yet, [Government finds new emails Clinton did not hand over](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/26/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0RP29820150926). So - either she lied, or the Defense Dept is lying. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/205 "2015-09-28T04:15:48Z")
Her claims for why she used a private server were also lies, which I listed earlier in the thread. In order for Clinton fans to not believe she’s a liar by now they have to be deliberately shutting out facts they don’t want to know. But you know what, they don’t even need to believe it if they don’t want to. What they can’t do is wish her into the Presidency. No one is getting elected with 63% of Americans believing her to be dishonest. The general election polls now show her trailing everyone but Trump. It’s not over, but it’s certainly close enough that Clinton fans might want to start looking at alternatives rather than whining about how unfair it all is. That’s Bills’ job, just as it was in 2008. ---
**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:** [September 28, 2015, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/206 "2015-09-28T04:30:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Her claims for why she used a private server were also lies, which I listed earlier in the thread. And that once again, the claims that she lied were also made by stretching the truth. > [@adaher](#): > > In order for Clinton fans to not believe she’s a liar by now they have to be deliberately shutting out facts they don’t want to know. But you know what, they don’t even need to believe it if they don’t want to. What they can’t do is wish her into the Presidency. No one is getting elected with 63% of Americans believing her to be dishonest. The general election polls now show her trailing everyone but Trump. It’s not over, but it’s certainly close enough that Clinton fans might want to start looking at alternatives rather than whining about how unfair it all is. That’s Bills’ job, just as it was in 2008. Don’t think so, if that was the case she would drop of the race but she is not. I will also say that this latest item seems a bit silly for the fact that it is clear that they do have that email thread now, one should not blame malice for what it is still a problem brought by rule changes. [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/the-real-clinton-email-scandal-our-ridiculous-classification-rules-121507](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/the-real-clinton-email-scandal-our-ridiculous-classification-rules-121507) > [@](#): > > Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account for official State Department business was a mistake, but the revelation that Clinton’s emails contain upwards of 305 messages with potentially “classified” information is far less scandalous than the headlines make it appear. The most troubling part of this story involves the rules governing official secrets, not Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. > > As a former Department of Justice official who regularly dealt with classified information, I am glad a team of officials from the FBI, the intelligence community and other agencies is not currently reviewing every email I sent and received while I worked in government. If they did, they would likely find arguably classified information that was transmitted over unclassified networks—and the same thing is undoubtedly true for other senior officials at the White House, the State Department and other top national security agencies. > > The sheer volume of information now considered classified, as well as the extreme, and often absurd, interpretations by intelligence officials about what is and is not classified, make it nearly impossible for officials charged with operating in both the classified and unclassified worlds to do so without ever mixing the two. > [@](#): > > But if Justice were to expand this review, it would establish a very troubling precedent for future cases. As ill advised as Secretary Clinton’s decision to operate a private server was, it has nothing to do with the potential classification problems that the intelligence community has raised. The exact same issue would have arisen had she been using an unclassified State Department email account, which, like her personal account, would not have been authorized to receive classified information. Furthermore, the only reason the interagency government committee began reviewing her emails for classification in the first place is because Clinton herself asked that they be released to the public. > > If the Justice Department were to broaden this investigation, it would be doing so in the middle of a campaign, at the behest of partisan members of Congress and opposing candidates, with no indication of predicate potential criminal wrongdoing. In this context, it could not credibly investigate Secretary Clinton’s email account without opening similar investigations across the government and exposing thousands of officials to baseless charges of wrongdoing. > > Protection of genuine classified material is without a doubt important, and the government has the responsibility to ensure it does not fall into the wrong hands. But with that no longer an issue in this case, the most important step it could take would be to finally begin implementing long overdue reforms to the classification process. That would have a far more lasting impact than an arbitrary, politically motivated fishing expedition. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/207 "2015-09-28T04:48:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In order for Clinton fans to not believe she’s a liar by now they have to be deliberately shutting out facts they don’t want to know. That isn’t even worth responding to with anything more than a smile. 😃 > [@](#): > > What they can’t do is wish her into the Presidency. Nor can you wish her out of it, despite your strenuous efforts here to find a reason. ---
**Author:** ![DerekMichaels00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@DerekMichaels00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DerekMichaels00)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/208 "2015-09-28T05:26:45Z")
OMG so bad, just like it did at this point in 1999 with Al Gore and Bill Bradley. [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-11-07/news/9911070059\_1\_new-hampshire-gore-duels](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-11-07/news/9911070059_1_new-hampshire-gore-duels) [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/20/register.bradley/](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/20/register.bradley/) [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/e98/e273.htm](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/e98/e273.htm) > **[Is Bill Bradley Too Snobby? Former Jersey Friends Haunt Campaign](https://observer.com/1999/10/is-bradley-too-snobby-former-jersey-friends-haunt-campaign/)** > > Sharpe James, the Mayor of Newark, is a sly political operator with a wolfish grin. He rules New Jersey’s largest city from a fortress like building with a gleaming gold dome, built at the tu… ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/209 "2015-09-28T12:21:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Here’s one. Hillary claimed numerous times, as late as last Sunday in a CBS interview that she turned over ALL the work emails from her server. Yet, [Government finds new emails Clinton did not hand over](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/26/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0RP29820150926). So - either she lied, or the Defense Dept is lying. I work as a electronic discovery specialist. I’m the guy responsible for going out, collecting email accounts and electronic document collections, making everything searchable, then culling by date range, keyword, etc., to get the potentially responsive documents to the attorneys for a privilege/relevance review, and afterwards preparing the documents for production to relevant parties. I can see four probable reasons may have happened: 1. Bad keywords or dates in the document request: The keywords agreed upon or the date range used didn’t cover these emails. 2. Bad searching by the tech responsible for this: Basically, the person ran the searches incorrectly or forgot some small detail which caused these to slip through the cracks. 3. Bad decision by the people going through and looking for privilege and/or classified information: The attorney flagged this email chain as either prilveged or non-responsive thus causing it to not be produced. 4. Deliberate obfusification: Doesn’t seem likely since it’s just an email chain detailing with personnel issues. Given the above, I’m given to think that it was just a mundane oversight of one type or another. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/210 "2015-09-28T12:34:14Z")
But it all \*has \*to be lies, because we \*know \*she’s a liar, because there are all these _stories_! Don’t you get it? Wake up, sheeple! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/211 "2015-09-28T21:21:41Z")
No, it’s a lie because she used a private server precisely so that she could choose what to give up for FOIA requests, which meant that despite her assurances, quite a few work related emails would not be turned over. It also shows that the search terms she would have had used would have had a bias towards protecting personal emails rather than giving up her work related emails, as she is required to do by law. Her failure to do that successfully is still a violation of the law, intentional or not, thus her absolute statement that she turned over all work emails. I’m guessing the next goalpost move by the Clinton campaign will be that she turned them all in “as far as she knew”. But goalpost moving aside, we know now that she did not turn over all her work emails, and that classified information passed through her private server. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/212 "2015-09-28T22:05:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The general election polls now show her trailing everyone but Trump. Not really. As of right now: [Bush vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-bush-vs-clinton): The probability that Clinton leads Bush is 75%. [Carson vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-carson-vs-clinton): The probability that Carson leads Clinton is 82%. [Fiorina vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-fiorina-vs-clinton): The probability that Clinton leads Fiorina is 61%. [Rubio vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-rubio-vs-clinton): The probability that Clinton leads Rubio is 99%. [Trump vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton): The probability that Clinton leads Trump is 94%. So just Carson at the moment according to Huffpost Pollster. What source did you use before you made your assertion? ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/213 "2015-09-28T22:12:33Z")
RCP right now: [Bush vs. Clinton](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html): Clinton +0.4 [Carson vs. Clinton](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_carson_vs_clinton-5119.html): Carson +0.5 [Fiorina vs. Clinton](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_fiorina_vs_clinton-5470.html): Clinton +4.5 [Rubio vs. Clinton](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html): Clinton +2.3 [Trump vs. Clinton](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html): Clinton +2.7 Same story. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/214 "2015-09-28T22:29:42Z")
Hillary just said last week that her private email server was more secure than the State Departments … which I thought was a great come back and she should’ve used it sooner. Too bad she’s already used the, “what difference does it make now” trump card. I don’t see how she had time to read that many emails in the first place much less re-read them to figure out what to delete. She had help, lots and lots of help. Now they are making it look like she will lose if Biden joins the race and if he stands down that she would easily beat Bernie. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/215 "2015-09-28T22:46:42Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Not really. As of right now: > > [Bush vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-bush-vs-clinton): The probability that Clinton leads Bush is 75%. > [Carson vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-carson-vs-clinton): The probability that Carson leads Clinton is 82%. > [Fiorina vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-fiorina-vs-clinton): The probability that Clinton leads Fiorina is 61%. > [Rubio vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-rubio-vs-clinton): The probability that Clinton leads Rubio is 99%. > [Trump vs. Clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton): The probability that Clinton leads Trump is 94%. > > So just Carson at the moment according to Huffpost Pollster. What source did you use before you made your assertion? Sources? **adaher** don’t need no stinkin’ sources! He has “THE TRUTH” on his side! ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/216 "2015-09-28T22:53:42Z")
Hillary’s likability factor has always been an issue. It first came up as first lady of Arkansas. Its been a consistent problem at every stage of her career. Her public persona is just unwelcoming and cold. She’s a divisive candidate. I can’t see any way she’ll win the nomination. Its so ironic that Bill has such a warm and inviting public persona. Hillary just the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/217 "2015-09-29T00:18:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, it’s a lie because she used a private server precisely so that she could choose what to give up for FOIA requests, which meant that despite her assurances, quite a few work related emails would not be turned over. > > It also shows that the search terms she would have had used would have had a bias towards protecting personal emails rather than giving up her work related emails, as she is required to do by law. Her failure to do that successfully is still a violation of the law, intentional or not, thus her absolute statement that she turned over all work emails. > > I’m guessing the next goalpost move by the Clinton campaign will be that she turned them all in “as far as she knew”. > > But goalpost moving aside, we know now that she did not turn over all her work emails, and that classified information passed through her private server. Let’s assume that she was producing in response to a committee subpoena since I have no idea exactly how a FOIA request gets responded to. The document request from the committee would issue broad classes of documents for her to turn over, such as: 1. Any document related to Benghazi. 2. Any document related to set up of private email server. 3. Etc. Her attorneys would meet with her and ask a series of questions designed to identify where those documents might reside: 1. Did you store emails in any particular folders that would identify these documents? 2. Did you keep paper copies of documents anywhere? 3. Etc. Afterwards, the attorneys (not Clinton) would establish a range of potential keywords to search and clear them with the committee prior to use. The committee has the ability to come back and say, "In addition to searching “Benghazi,” we’d also like you to search “Christopher w/1 Stephens.” Keywords aren’t decided unilaterally by Clinton’s team. Afterwards, Clintons’ attorneys review the emails for privilege/responsiveness. Clinton doesn’t really have much input into that. Any suppression of related documents risks sanctions, and if done intentionally, will get the attorney censured or disbarred. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/218 "2015-09-29T00:19:53Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Let’s assume that she was producing in response to a committee subpoena since I have no idea exactly how a FOIA request gets responded to. > > The document request from the committee would issue broad classes of documents for her to turn over, such as: > > 1. Any document related to Benghazi. > 2. Any document related to set up of private email server. > 3. Etc. > > Her attorneys would meet with her and ask a series of questions designed to identify where those documents might reside: > > 1. Did you store emails in any particular folders that would identify these document? > 2. Did you keep paper copies of documents anywhere? > 3. Etc. > > Afterwards, the attorneys (not Clinton) would establish a range of potential keywords to search and clear them with the committee prior to use. The committee has the ability to come back and say, "In addition to searching “Benghazi,” we’d also like you to search “Christopher w/1 Stephens.” Keywords aren’t decided unilaterally by Clinton’s team. > > Afterwards, Clintons’ attorneys review the emails for privilege/responsiveness. Clinton doesn’t really have much input into that. Any suppression of related documents risks sanctions, and if done intentionally, will get the attorney censured or disbarred. By the way, the same process would happen no matter which server the emails are contained, private or government. The only real possibility of hiding it would be to delete it so it’s not there for discovery. However, since there are two parties on every email, that’s a dicey gamble to make. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/219 "2015-09-29T01:29:14Z")
I notice that now we’re considering a statistical tie to be good news for Clinton. How far the goalposts have moved. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653/220 "2015-09-29T02:15:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I notice that now we’re considering a statistical tie to be good news for Clinton. How far the goalposts have moved. Yes. If Dems were smart they’d drop her now and hope someone else will get up to speed and win for them. Maybe Nader can hop in and the Dems can choose between him and Sanders. Unsullied v Trump 2016! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-getting-worse-for-hillary/727653.md?page=12)