# The Great Un-Fork Hillary Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 12, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458 "2015-04-12T00:17:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 66
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1301 "2015-09-09T13:07:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. She lied. So naturally voters don’t trust her. That’s what you said about Obama and Benghazi too. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1302 "2015-09-09T13:10:00Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Seriously, where’s the beef? “She didn’t do everything by the book, and she deleted some stuff she might shouldn’t have” is pretty weak tea. She illegally kept classified documents on an insecure private server. Note that the law does not include an exception for documents not marked as classified. From the list of questions linked above: > [@](#): > > Ever hear of Thomas Drake? He’s the former senior National Security Agency official indicted under the Espionage Act for keeping an agency email printout at his home that was not marked as classified. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Why should Hillary be exempt from this? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1303 "2015-09-09T13:10:06Z")
They took their lumps. THe issue is pretty much closed for most of the public, but it counts as a net negative for Clinton. With her apology for the email server, that issue is probably going to be in the rearview mirror soon as well. Which doesn’t mean she’s not going to be hurt by it, it just means that like Benghazi, it’s over and done with and she’s already taken all the damage she’s doing to take from it. Which is good, because her polling kept getting worse and worse. Now she at least will stop the bleeding. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1304 "2015-09-09T13:18:56Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Why should Hillary be exempt from this? Because the law requires that she knew they were classified–marked or not. Part of the reason for this–in addition to the normal criminal law requirement of knowledge that the conduct is improper–is that classification decisions are not black-and-white and reasonable people can disagree about whether something unmarked should be classified. Obviously, it is perfectly possible for any given individual to know (or should know) that a given document is classified, as in many prosecutions. There is no evidence that is true for Clinton. None of which is to suggest she didn’t act improperly, blah blah, but it’s probably not a fruitful criminal inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1305 "2015-09-09T14:23:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Because the law requires that she knew they were classified–marked or not. I’d love to see evidence that “I’m exempt from this law if I assert I didn’t know these documents were classified” constitutes a valid defense. And the idea that she’s okay provided she can avoid an indictment seems highly dubious. Hillary was the Secretary of State, and hopes to be President. If she doesn’t have an acute sense of what information should be kept secure, it’s entirely reasonable to call her fitness for high office into serious question. Hypothetical: A mid-level State Department employee is found to have some classified documents stored on a PC at his house. Could he expect to avoid being fired - and prosecuted - by claiming he didn’t know they were classified? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1306 "2015-09-09T14:41:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. She lied. So naturally voters don’t trust her. Sorry, but making a big deal about covering up a non-crime is bullshit. > [@Xema](#): > > She illegally kept classified documents on an insecure private server. Note that the law does not include an exception for documents not marked as classified. Were they already classified (whether or not they were marked as such) at the time she was sent them, or put them there herself, whichever applies? If so, cite, please. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1307 "2015-09-09T15:03:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Were they already classified (whether or not they were marked as such) at the time she was sent them, or put them there herself, whichever applies? If so, cite, please. Post 1280 upthread. Per the FBI (and that other agency), at least several were classified at the time they were sent. And the cite is NY Times ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1308 "2015-09-09T15:15:29Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > making a big deal about covering up a non-crime is bullshit. But a candidate spewing a bunch of self-serving lies may not be. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1309 "2015-09-09T15:33:00Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > I’d love to see evidence that “I’m exempt from this law if I assert I didn’t know these documents were classified” constitutes a valid defense. I don’t know why you feel the need to put a gloss on it like that. The law is that the prosecutor must prove that the defendant knew or should have known the documents were classified. I’m too lazy to cite the law for you, but I’ve cited it in other threads on this subject. > [@Xema](#): > > And the idea that she’s okay provided she can avoid an indictment seems highly dubious… Who proposed that idea? Maybe you’re attacking a straw man? I do think you’re probably misguided about how obvious it is that a given unmarked document should be classified. But to me that’s not even the crux of the story. What makes her behavior wrong is the attempt to hide her official business from public discovery, wholly apart from the classified info aspect. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1310 "2015-09-09T15:39:59Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Post 1280 upthread. Per the FBI (and that other agency), at least several were classified at the time they were sent. And the cite is NY Times You left out a word from your quote. **Yours:** > [@](#): > > the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011. **Context** , including the actual subject and verb: > [@](#): > > But **the special review** — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — **concluded that** the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011. On Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the **conclusion** of the intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often have different views of what should be considered classified. Bolding mine. So an after-the-fact review concluded that they had been top secret at the time. Pardon me, but I’m not even sure what that means. Had a determination that they were top secret taken place before Hillary received them, or hadn’t it? Or are they saying, **now** we’re concluding that it was classified **back then**? And if so, how does this differ from an _ex post facto_ law? ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1311 "2015-09-09T15:52:29Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Post 1280 upthread. Per the FBI (and that other agency), at least several were classified at the time they were sent. And the cite is NY Times And we all know that the NY Times has a long history of reporting fairly and accurately on Mrs. Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1312 "2015-09-09T15:52:36Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Post 1280 upthread. Per the FBI (and that other agency), at least several were classified at the time they were sent. And the cite is NY Times Where in the story does it say that the emails had their classification marked when they were sent? Edit: Shoot, I was ninja’d. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1313 "2015-09-09T15:58:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > … the prosecutor must prove that the defendant knew or should have known the documents were classified. It is disputable that the Secretary of State should know that things like spy satellite data on North Korean nuclear weapons development ought to be classified? To contend that she didn’t know this is to claim that she’s incompetent. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1314 "2015-09-09T16:20:37Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > It is disputable that the Secretary of State should know that things like spy satellite data on North Korean nuclear weapons development ought to be classified? To contend that she didn’t know this is to claim that she’s incompetent. You act like you know a lot about this, but you don’t. Lots of things that are in the public record are still considered classified, for example. It is not reasonable to expect any single individual to correctly identify every unmarked classified document as classified. Indeed, if you have five different departments all analyze a thousand documents, you’d get five different judgments about which are classified. It just isn’t a black-and-white system. That’s why it’s a very good idea not to have high-level officials using private servers. But you’re just not being very persuasive when you argue that Clinton must be incompetent if some agency thinks something she sent on the private server was classified. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1315 "2015-09-09T16:23:31Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So an after-the-fact review concluded that they had been top secret at the time. > > Pardon me, but I’m not even sure what that means. Had a determination that they were top secret taken place before Hillary received them, or hadn’t it? Or are they saying, **now** we’re concluding that it was classified **back then**? And if so, how does this differ from an _ex post facto_ law? [An article from Reuters that answers all your questions, including the legality of “ex post facto”.](http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/03/what-everyone-with-a-top-secret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/) He also goes on to point out that > [@](#): > > In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively. > > It is a way of doing business inside the government that may at first seem nonsensical, but in practice is essential for keeping secrets. > > For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance. > > “Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience. and cites a NY Times article that goes into great detail on this. ---
**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 9, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1316 "2015-09-09T17:11:31Z")
I have to point here that it is more clear to me that whoever agencies that thought it was a good idea to sent those messages that later were deemed classified to a personal e-mail account are the ones that should be in more trouble. In any case, we have still the inconvenient issue that when that took place the rules had not changed yet. It would be more nonsensical to assume that all breaches are the same, nowhere it has pointed out a case similar to an “NSA intercept of a foreign government leader” in the email in case. And this still will have to deal with intent. > **[Wash. Post's David Ignatius Explains The "Scandal" Missing From Clinton's...](https://www.mediamatters.org/washington-post/wash-posts-david-ignatius-explains-scandal-missing-clintons-email-use)** > [@](#): > > Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state has been a nagging campaign issue for months. Critics have argued that the most serious problem is possible transmission of classified information through that server. Many of her former top aides have sought legal counsel. But experts in national-security law say there may be less here than it might appear. > > First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “[state.gov](http://state.gov)” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters. > > […] > > Informal back channels existed long before e-mail. One former State Department official recalled the days when most embassies overseas had only a few phones authorized for secret communications. Rather than go to the executive office to make such a call, officers would use their regular phones, bypassing any truly sensitive details. “Did we cross red lines? No doubt. Did it put information at risk? Maybe. But, if you weren’t in Moscow or Beijing, you didn’t worry much,” this former official said. > > Back channels are used because the official ones are so encrusted by classification and bureaucracy. State had the “Roger Channel,” named after former official Roger Hilsman, for sending secret messages directly to the secretary. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had a similar private channel. CIA station chiefs could send communications known as “Aardwolves” straight to the director. > > Are these channels misused sometimes? Most definitely. Is there a crime here? Almost certainly not. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1317 "2015-09-09T17:19:49Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > … if you have five different departments all analyze a thousand documents, you’d get five different judgments about which are classified. It just isn’t a black-and-white system. Obviously true of a collection of 1000 documents. But if one of them is spy satellite (Talent-Keyhole) data about NK nuclear weapons, there would be five votes for “obviously classified”. And how about an email summarizing discussions with various foreign ministers? That sort of information is [“born classified”](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821) - something the Secretary of State, above all people, should know and respect. > [@](#): > > That’s why it’s a very good idea not to have high-level officials using private servers Indeed. > [@](#): > > But you’re just not being very persuasive when you argue that Clinton must be incompetent if some agency thinks something she sent on the private server was classified. I don’t think she’s incompetent in the sense that she wasn’t smart enough to know that a bunch of the stuff on her server was classified information that didn’t belong there. I think she figured she had and would retain control of that information (the obvious reason it was stashed on a private server), so it didn’t matter to her whether or not it was classified. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1318 "2015-09-09T17:24:46Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Obviously true of a collection of 1000 documents. But if one of them is spy satellite (Talent-Keyhole) data about NK nuclear weapons, there would be five votes for “obviously classified”. It pretty clearly depends on what exactly was in the email. > [@Xema](#): > > And how about an email summarizing discussions with various foreign ministers? That sort of information is [“born classified”](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821) - something the Secretary of State, above all people, should know and respect. I debunked that article elsewhere. It relies heavily on the quoted answer to a question without saying the exact question asked. It is true that lots of documents are “born classified.” It is not true that there is any categorical rule without exceptions that a summary of a discussion with foreign ministers is classified. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1319 "2015-09-09T18:04:47Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Sorry, but making a big deal about covering up a non-crime is bullshit. If she’ll lie to protect herself from minor political fallout, she’ll lie about anything. As David Geffen, a supporter of hers said, “They lie so easily.” It’s probably just pathological. But anyway, this is up to the judgment of the voters, and the voters have said overwhelmingly that she is not honest and trustworthy, which at this point is established fact. So the real question is whether we want someone like that to be President. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1320 "2015-09-09T18:14:52Z")
You \*really \*need to get past this issue of thinking all voters think the same way you do, or would if they knew better. The data continues to falsify your pet hypothesis, yet you keep proclaiming it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=65) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=67)