# What happened with the Hillary email scandal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 29, 2016, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574 "2016-01-29T14:58:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/181 "2016-02-02T01:42:51Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > True. But the text of Hillary’s NDA linked above makes it clear that the SoS does have that responsibility. (It would be a very strange thing if the highest-ranking person in a government department that routinely deals with matters of national security did not.) And if she has a different opinion? If the head of the state department looks at something and decides it doesn’t need to be classified, and 10 years later the head of the CIA looks at it and decides that it does… why do we automatically assume the CIA is making the right call and the head of the state department made the wrong call? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/182 "2016-02-02T01:46:08Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > You could not possibly do that. If classified information was contained in a news account (made public), it would no longer be classified. Thus is unambiguously incorrect and anyone with a knowledge of classified handling would know that. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/183 "2016-02-02T01:55:05Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Then why would he be sending it to her @state.gov email address in the first place? Because she asked him to? Here’s a link to an [article describing just such a request](http://nypost.com/2015/09/02/more-clinton-emails-contain-foreign-governments-information/), from Hillary to special envoy George Mitchell. If she cared about doing the right thing with regard to security, shouldn’t she be telling her correspondents not to use her private email? It’s lame to take the position: “Hey, not my responsibility to call attention to a bad practice - they should have known.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/184 "2016-02-02T01:57:44Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Thus is unambiguously incorrect and anyone with a knowledge of classified handling would know that. I can confirm this and we’ve had specific training on this - just because we hear something on the news doesn’t mean we can discuss it if it’s classified. And if makes sense… Sometimes the news gets it wrong, and if the info is classified, we don’t want to confirm our deny it. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/185 "2016-02-02T02:01:50Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > For that matter, it shouldn’t be _possible_ to simply forward classified information to an unclass email account, because it means the sender would necessarily have to be using an unclass computer themselves. Meaning they’re ipso facto creating a classified message incident. This is an important point. Depending on the source, it could mean the related activity was deliberate. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/186 "2016-02-02T02:02:36Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Because she asked him to? Here’s a link to an [article describing just such a request](http://nypost.com/2015/09/02/more-clinton-emails-contain-foreign-governments-information/), from Hillary to special envoy George Mitchell. > > If she cared about doing the right thing with regard to security, shouldn’t she be telling her correspondents not to use her private email? It’s lame to take the position: “Hey, not my responsibility to call attention to a bad practice - they should have known.” Perhaps you’ve missed my point. Would you be satisfied if she had used the @state.gov address that she was supplied with for all of this? ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/187 "2016-02-02T02:03:35Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Thus is unambiguously incorrect and anyone with a knowledge of classified handling would know that. I refer you to post 178, above. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/188 "2016-02-02T02:10:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I can confirm this and we’ve had specific training on this - just because we hear something on the news doesn’t mean we can discuss it if it’s classified. And if makes sense… Sometimes the news gets it wrong, and if the info is classified, we don’t want to confirm our deny it. Now the reason for it: The cherry-picked example. Only people directly involved in the specific program or operation would --really --know-- if it was in fact classified and true - an immeasurably small drop in the bucket of people who are now aware of it, but don’t know what it really means or if it is really accurate. So the investigation starts with you and your group. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/189 "2016-02-02T02:11:02Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > And if she has a different opinion? This point would make sense if she were taking the position that she’d evaluated those 1300+ emails and within her authority as SoS had determined that they should all be treated as unclassified. I’m not aware that she has ever taken that position. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/190 "2016-02-02T02:22:58Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Would you be satisfied if she had used the @state.gov address that she was supplied with for all of this? Was she supplied with one? Here’s an article in which a former inspector general (Howard J. Krongard) says she wasn’t: > [@](#): > > The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a [state.gov](http://state.gov) email address like previous secretaries. > > “That’s a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private email server until later,” Krongard said in an exclusive interview. “How else was she supposed to do business without email?” ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/191 "2016-02-02T02:26:07Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Was she supplied with one? Here’s an article in which a former inspector general (Howard J. Krongard) says she wasn’t: Presumably one would have been created if she’d wanted one. Would that make you feel better about people sending her “classified” information to an unclassified email account? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/192 "2016-02-02T02:41:53Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > I refer you to post 178, above. You’re flippant reference to post 178 doesn’t change the fact that you made an assertion and you were incorrect. Your flip response in post 178 doesn’t negate that fact either, nor does it accurately reflect on the actual policy with regard to classified information that has been leaked and published. At the moment, you look like a partisan who has no real, first-hand knowledge re: classified information. ETA: Perhaps if you provided some cites to back up your assertions, that impression might change. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/193 "2016-02-02T02:44:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > You’re flippant reference… Sorry you don’t get it. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/194 "2016-02-02T03:25:05Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > . . . and y’all could just rub yourselves raw at the thought. . . Do not violate the [rule against claiming other posters are deriving sexual gratfication from their opinions.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4749265#post4749265) [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Kiber](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kiber/32/317_2.png) [@Kiber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiber)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/195 "2016-02-02T16:27:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I can confirm this and we’ve had specific training on this - just because we hear something on the news doesn’t mean we can discuss it if it’s classified. And if makes sense… Sometimes the news gets it wrong, and if the info is classified, we don’t want to confirm our deny it. Just to add another point of agreement here. I’ve got multiple clearances (TS from DOE and DoD, plus other lower levels) which decidedly makes me NOT an expert but instead one among tens of thousands with similar clearances. The bottom line is that just because something is public knowledge does NOT make it unclassified. Personal anecdote to follow: Not long ago I was in a meeting that was shutdown because one person in attendance did not have the proper clearance to see the information being presented. Which kind of killed the meeting, since the person without proper clearance was also the person giving the presentation - with information he obtained from . . . . wait for it . . . . Google. While each individual bit of information that he used was in fact publicly available, 2 things were at issue. 1 - some of what he pulled from Google was in fact still classified, despite being publicly available. But 2 - some of the information independently was not classified, but taken in aggregate - became classified. That is - you can create a classified document simply by putting together bits of information which themselves aren’t classified, but together paint a picture that is (or should be) classified. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/196 "2016-02-02T16:39:02Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > Nothing I said requires a cite. You people keep talking about “classified information” like it’s all the same, and only underlines your lack of knowledge about it. It’s like saying crime is all the same. People shoplift all the time and get probation or house arrest. Murderers don’t get off so easy. > > Someone forgetting to put something in the safe or lock the safe happens all time and people get wrist slaps. **Organizing, maintaining unclassified email infrastructure (either knowingly or not) transmitting/receiving and storing SCI is like the Al Capone level of this type crime…** Bolding added. You’re still relatively new here, so let me be clear. This is the kind of statement that requires a cite. Why are you unwilling or unable to provide one? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/197 "2016-02-02T16:43:09Z")
We could have a clearer idea of what sort of risks she took with classified into if we knew what the classified info _was_. Which is, of course, classified. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/198 "2016-02-02T18:45:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Do not violate the [rule against claiming other posters are deriving sexual gratfication from their opinions.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4749265#post4749265) > > [/Moderating] LOL, that is a very specific rule! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/199 "2016-02-02T18:52:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Do not violate the [rule against claiming other posters are deriving sexual gratfication from their opinions.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4749265#post4749265) > > [/Moderating] [Maxwell Smart] Would you believe I meant some other sort of gratification, besides sexual? [/Maxwell Smart] No? Okay. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/200 "2016-02-02T22:26:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Most of this (like the assertion that there were 1200 emails with information that we know was classified at the time it was sent to Hillary) is contrary to the facts as I am aware of them. Do you have a cite for all these claims? Apparently you cannot read for comprehension. I said: > [@](#): > > Clinton was emailed information that should have been classified twelve hundred (1200!) times You can play the ‘But it wasn’t classified at that time’ crap all you want. It is bullshit put forward by a liar to get ignorant people to ignore her stunningly stupid actions. I note that you keep harping on the ‘classified at that time’ piece while totally ignoring that some of the information was classified as soon as it was created. Talent Keyhole and other TS program information is by default classified. Period. There is no question about this. It is classified by its very nature and anyone with the clearance to receive the information damned well ought to know that. And here is a rather simple question. Do you believe that the official email account used by the Secretary of State is likely to receive classified information on a regular basis? Slee [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=11)