# 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:** 13
**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 5, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/241 "2016-02-05T19:35:11Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > post snipped: > > I don’t buy into “Hillary is evil and wants to destroy America”. I do, however, buy into 'Hillary (and Bill) believe that they should be able to do whatever they want but don’t like it when they are called on unethical behavior. Both Bill and Hillary have been caught in possibly unethical situations numerous times. Therefore Hillary wants to control over as much information as possible." > > Their pattern of behavior is a) do something hinky b) claim they didn’t do anything hinky c) blame the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ for pointing out that they did something hinky and d) riding it out with the support of their base. > > The list of Clinton scandals is quite long. There are some bullshit ones in there, like Vince Foster. However, things like [Fliegate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy), [Clinton Foundation (My god, the Clintons took lots and lots of money from the UAE)](http://nlpc.org/stories/2016/01/13/fbi-investigating-clinton-foundation-pay-play) , [cattle futures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy) (I particularly like this one - 1 in 31 trillion!) make one question the Cllintons ethics. > > Note, I don’t think most of our politicians are particularly ethical. It just seems to me that the Clintons are much better at getting away with shit than the other lying assholes. > > We, the voters, could solve these kinds of problems. However we don’t. Instead of calling these folks out and punishing them for their behavior, we let it slide if the particular politician is on ‘our’ side. > > Slee I question their ethics, and I’d love to “punish” this behavior if I thought there was a more ethical (and realistic) alternative. Further, I think this kind of unethical behavior is far, far less damaging to the country than the unethical behavior promised by most of her opponents. If she was running against Abraham Lincoln, I’d strongly consider Lincoln. But in the real world, aside from considering a vote for Bernie (which I am strongly considering), not only is she least bad option compared to the Republicans, she’s the least bad option by orders of magnitude, in my opinion, even if the worst case in these accusations are true. ---
**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 5, 2016, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/242 "2016-02-05T19:52:24Z")
I’ll add that I think it’s rare to the point of near nonexistence for anyone to have the combination of drive, ambition, and ego required to both contend for the Presidency and believe oneself to be qualified and capable of doing it well, along with no beliefs that one is “special” with accompanying "special privileges. So I doubt I’ll ever get the chance to vote for someone like that. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/243 "2016-02-05T20:24:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I question their ethics, and I’d love to “punish” this behavior if I thought there was a more ethical (and realistic) alternative. Further, I think this kind of unethical behavior is far, far less damaging to the country than the unethical behavior promised by most of her opponents. Which is exactly what a lot of conservatives believe as well. And we end up with liars and cheats leading the country. Yes, you are part of the problem. Same as all the other folks who consistently pull D or R even if the candidates are total scum. There is, as far as I can tell, only one way to get honest politicians into office. That is to stomp any pol who is caught doing anything unethical. With the present game we are in, the only real winners are the pols. The ideological divide plays into their hands. The ‘Always vote D(or R)’ people are in effect giving the pols a free pass to do whatever the hell they want. Regarding this: > [@](#): > > I’ll add that I think it’s rare to the point of near nonexistence for anyone to have the combination of drive, ambition, and ego required to both contend for the Presidency and believe oneself to be qualified and capable of doing it well, along with no beliefs that one is “special” with accompanying "special privileges. So I doubt I’ll ever get the chance to vote for someone like that. I think there are a ton of people out there with the drive ambition and talent to run for President and win. In fact, I believe there are a ton of ethical people out there with the drive, ambition and talent required to win. I believe the problem \*\*is \*\*that they are ethical and don’t want to jump into the ethical abyss that is politics. So, we end up with liars, cheats and thieves. And it won’t change because the partisans are playing the short game, who gets in office _right now_ instead of looking longer term. It makes a certain sort of twisted sense, in that whichever liar you vote for has to try and implement some of the things they said they would do. However, long term we end up getting more partisan and the liars just keep on lying. Slee ---
**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 5, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/244 "2016-02-05T20:27:29Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Which is exactly what a lot of conservatives believe as well. And we end up with liars and cheats leading the country. > > Yes, you are part of the problem. Same as all the other folks who consistently pull D or R even if the candidates are total scum. > > There is, as far as I can tell, only one way to get honest politicians into office. That is to stomp any pol who is caught doing anything unethical. > > With the present game we are in, the only real winners are the pols. The ideological divide plays into their hands. The ‘Always vote D(or R)’ people are in effect giving the pols a free pass to do whatever the hell they want. > > Regarding this: > I think there are a ton of people out there with the drive ambition and talent to run for President and win. In fact, I believe there are a ton of ethical people out there with the drive, ambition and talent required to win. > > I believe the problem \*\*is \*\*that they are ethical and don’t want to jump into the ethical abyss that is politics. > > So, we end up with liars, cheats and thieves. > > And it won’t change because the partisans are playing the short game, who gets in office _right now_ instead of looking longer term. It makes a certain sort of twisted sense, in that whichever liar you vote for has to try and implement some of the things they said they would do. However, long term we end up getting more partisan and the liars just keep on lying. > > Slee You’re a lot less cynical them I am. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/245 "2016-02-06T06:12:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll add that I think it’s rare to the point of near nonexistence for anyone to have the combination of drive, ambition, and ego required to both contend for the Presidency and believe oneself to be qualified and capable of doing it well, along with no beliefs that one is “special” with accompanying "special privileges. So I doubt I’ll ever get the chance to vote for someone like that. I have many criticisms of Obama, but I have never heard of Obama believing rules are for the little people. Such behavior has been a part of the Clintons for a long time and it’s a big reason why the word “entitlement” often gets attached to them. They’ve covered themselves in sleaze and rule bending since the day before they left office(starting with the Rich pardon) and think that it’s not supposed to matter because they are royalty or something. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/246 "2016-02-06T17:05:01Z")
According to the news she had Top Secret SCI emails. That is as high a classification as it gets. I’m a military Officer. I’m 100% certain that if I had TS SCI at my house the following would happen: -My clearance would instantly be suspended and ultimately removed -I’d be be Court Martial and be convicted -This could be one of the rare times when I could loose my pension -I’d spend time in jail -When released I’d never have a clearance again, never have a government job again and I’d have a felony conviction and God know what type of job I’d ever have again Within the government where I work, it’s beyond belief that people think it’s OK to have Secret, let alone TS or TS SCI material at once house. Mind boggling. (Previously posted in a virtually identical thread.) ---
**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:** [February 6, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/247 "2016-02-06T17:29:02Z")
You are saying the Secretary of State wouldn’t be allowed to review classifed documents in her home? i.e. she basically couldn’t work from home. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/248 "2016-02-06T18:36:48Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You are saying the Secretary of State wouldn’t be allowed to review classifed documents in her home? i.e. she basically couldn’t work from home. In an unsecured environment? No she couldn’t If the Top Secret material wasn’t accounted for? No she couldn’t If the Top Secret material was routed though an unsecured line? No she couldn’t Do you think all of the government employees with clearances should just make up their own rules as they go along? ---
**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:** [February 6, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/249 "2016-02-06T18:52:46Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > According to the news she had Top Secret SCI emails. That is as high a classification as it gets. I’m a military Officer. I’m 100% certain that if I had TS SCI at my house the following would happen: > > -My clearance would instantly be suspended and ultimately removed > -I’d be be Court Martial and be convicted > -This could be one of the rare times when I could loose my pension > -I’d spend time in jail > -When released I’d never have a clearance again, never have a government job again and I’d have a felony conviction and God know what type of job I’d ever have again > > Within the government where I work, it’s beyond belief that people think it’s OK to have Secret, let alone TS or TS SCI material at once house. Mind boggling. > > (Previously posted in a virtually identical thread.) Mind boggling that people still ignore that none of the emails were declared secret until much later. Also many on the right just continue to ignore that what Clinton did was allowed then. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/250 "2016-02-06T19:00:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Mind boggling that people still ignore that none of the emails were declared secret until much later. > > Also many on the right just continue to ignore that what Clinton did was allowed then. They are Top Secret SCI, which is much much more sensitive than secret. And it doesn’t matter if they are marked or not. And it wasn’t allowed then. In these political discussions, I’m always amazed that it the conduct is by “your guy” it doesn’t matter what they do. ---
**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:** [February 6, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/251 "2016-02-06T19:03:24Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Do you think all of the government employees with clearances should just make up their own rules as they go along? Cabinet members are hardly simple government employees. They are on 24hr call. You honestly think that they all have to drive to the office every time they need to look at classified information? ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/252 "2016-02-06T19:16:29Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Cabinet members are hardly simple government employees. They are on 24hr call. You honestly think that they all have to drive to the office every time they need to look at classified information? No they clearly don’t. They either have a government approved safe, and or they have a government provided secure email line, classified computer and classified printer. Do you honestly think that Top Secret SCI information, which is the highest classification that the government has, just just send over aol or sent to your iPhone without any special encryption or special handling? Do you not understand that classified material is handled differently on unique, dedicated increased security lines and computers from non-classified information? ---
**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:** [February 6, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/253 "2016-02-06T19:25:24Z")
No. But you were going on and on about having it at her home. That’s what I was addressing. I doubt she intentionally used private email for stuff she thought classified. ---
**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:** [February 6, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/254 "2016-02-06T19:39:10Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > They are Top Secret SCI, which is much much more sensitive than secret. And it doesn’t matter if they are marked or not. > > And it wasn’t allowed then. > > In these political discussions, I’m always amazed that it the conduct is by “your guy” it doesn’t matter what they do. The record does show that you are wrong anyhow, the emails were not marked secret then, AFAIK Powell has been found to had the same issue, and that points yet to another issue that the right wing media is misleading you, the intent of the one that allegedly mishandled the email is important in assigning any punishment. The most likely end to this will be just what amounts to a slap on her wrist, and the only sad thing here is that no matter how the media has misled you, you will dislike more the ones that you think are just partisans that are giving you better information and you will continue to rely on the ones that will continue in the future to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/255 "2016-02-06T23:03:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The record does show that you are wrong anyhow, the emails were not marked secret then, AFAIK Powell has been found to had the same issue, and that points yet to another issue that the right wing media is misleading you, the intent of the one that allegedly mishandled the email is important in assigning any punishment. > > The most likely end to this will be just what amounts to a slap on her wrist, and the only sad thing here is that no matter how the media has misled you, you will dislike more the ones that you think are just partisans that are giving you better information and you will continue to rely on the ones that will continue in the future to do the same. I’m not mislead it at all, thanks though. If she had used the account she was supposed to have used, any spillage that she had would have had would have been on a government computer on a government server, with a much higher likelihood that it would have be caught and secured. And as a government employee, it your responsibly to contain that. It doesn’t matter what it’s marked, it’s her job to know it’s classified. And unclass is a long way from TS. 22 TS emails is a lot. As a guy who has voted for Clinton, Bush and Obama (i.e. a middle of the road guy) I am angry that she put her desire to control all of her political and private email over the interest of national security. That’s why I and all of the Officers that I know use government computers for government business. But as I said up thread, if you like Clinton, you don’t really give a crap that she had top secret material on her unsecured iPhone, any more than republicans would care if Bush had TS on his. We get the elected officials we deserve and those whose conduct we allow. And at this point, if she can have TS on her iPhone, and people like you are jumping though their asses to make excuses for it, she knows there isn’t anything she can’t get away with. So on a personal level, I’m stuck with Trump who is a complete and total buffoon, or Clinton who is a liar of the first magnitude who knows no rule or law applies to her. Fuck. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/256 "2016-02-06T23:21:54Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No. But you were going on and on about having it at her home. That’s what I was addressing. I doubt she intentionally used private email for stuff she thought classified. Are you sure about that? Are you suggesting that she believed that she would never have to deal with classified material as secretary of state? For example, my understanding that private communication with foreign leaders is considered to be automatically classified, and her training would have told her that. Are you suggesting that she never communicated with foreign leaders through her unclassified system? As for intention… There is [this](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/), from the E-mails that have been made public: > [@](#): > > But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means. > > Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides “say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” This sounds to me like there was information Clinton wanted that was stored in the secured system, and which DID have a header indicating that it was secret. It was supposed to be sent to her by secure FAX, but the system wasn’t working right, so Clinton instructed her employee to hand-copy the material into an E-mail, stripping it of classified headers, and then to send it to her unsecured mail system. Is there any other interpretation? Now, it turns out the staffer didn’t comply with her request, but it sure does seem like Hillary had no problem with this kind of behavior. It also calls into question her insistence that nothing she received was ‘marked classified’. Well, if the practice was to remove the classification markings before sending it to her, that could be technically true but still very questionable behavior. The thing is, Clinton is doing the same old trick of carefully parsing everything in legalistic terms. But in an election, the standard isn’t whether you can be charged with a crime - the standard is whether the public believes you are trustworthy. Stuff like this looks very bad to people who aren’t already big Clinton fans. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2016, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/257 "2016-02-07T00:16:39Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Stuff like this looks very bad to people who aren’t already big Clinton fans. This speculation is interesting to me. Is there any evidence about what people think of this scandal who do not already have strong views about Clinton one way or another? ---
**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:** [February 7, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/258 "2016-02-07T00:19:01Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This sounds to me like there was information Clinton wanted that was stored in the secured system, and which DID have a header indicating that it was secret. It was supposed to be sent to her by secure FAX, but the system wasn’t working right, so Clinton instructed her employee to hand-copy the material into an E-mail, stripping it of classified headers, and then to send it to her unsecured mail system. Is there any other interpretation? Yes, as you also point out: > [@](#): > > according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent “apparently by secure fax, after all,” and was never was sent to Clinton by email. Mind you that email exchange reported that, but then AFAIK no such questionable behavior was reported as happening before or again. ---
**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 7, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/259 "2016-02-07T00:22:29Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This sounds to me like there was information Clinton wanted that was stored in the secured system, and which DID have a header indicating that it was secret. It was supposed to be sent to her by secure FAX, but the system wasn’t working right, so Clinton instructed her employee to hand-copy the material into an E-mail, stripping it of classified headers, and then to send it to her unsecured mail system. Is there any other interpretation? > > Now, it turns out the staffer didn’t comply with her request, but it sure does seem like Hillary had no problem with this kind of behavior. It also calls into question her insistence that nothing she received was ‘marked classified’. Well, if the practice was to remove the classification markings before sending it to her, that could be technically true but still very questionable behavior. > > The thing is, Clinton is doing the same old trick of carefully parsing everything in legalistic terms. But in an election, the standard isn’t whether you can be charged with a crime - the standard is whether the public believes you are trustworthy. Stuff like this looks very bad to people who aren’t already big Clinton fans. Unclassified stuff is marked classified all the time due to overzealousness and just plain laziness. Unless we know what was on this potential fax, we don’t know whether the information itself was actually classified or not, even if it was marked so. Directing someone to remove classified markings for information that is not actually classified is very, very common and routine. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/260 "2016-02-07T00:27:11Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I’m not mislead it at all, thanks though. > > If she had used the account she was supposed to have used, any spillage that she had would have had would have been on a government computer on a government server, with a much higher likelihood that it would have be caught and secured. And as a government employee, it your responsibly to contain that. It doesn’t matter what it’s marked, it’s her job to know it’s classified. And unclass is a long way from TS. 22 TS emails is a lot. > > As a guy who has voted for Clinton, Bush and Obama (i.e. a middle of the road guy) I am angry that she put her desire to control all of her political and private email over the interest of national security. That’s why I and all of the Officers that I know use government computers for government business. > > But as I said up thread, if you like Clinton, you don’t really give a crap that she had top secret material on her unsecured iPhone, any more than republicans would care if Bush had TS on his. We get the elected officials we deserve and those whose conduct we allow. And at this point, if she can have TS on her iPhone, and people like you are jumping though their asses to make excuses for it, she knows there isn’t anything she can’t get away with. Piffle, as none of the points have been countered by you it is clear that I’m basing the defense of her on precedents and the fact that the media has gotten many things wrong on this issue and most of what you are using as “evidence” is coming from partisans that already came forward as using the scandal for political purposes. > [@spifflog](#): > > So on a personal level, I’m stuck with Trump who is a complete and total buffoon, or Clinton who is a liar of the first magnitude who knows no rule or law applies to her. Fuck. Trump kowtows to racists and should not be in any place close to the nuclear button and the bully pulpit that is the presidency, his climate change denial and anti-vaccination ideas are enough to vote for any democrat. And as mentioned before most of what you are using about the emails against Clinton is wrong or made up. > **[Myths And Facts On Hillary Clinton's Email And Reports Of "Top Secret" Materials](https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-nation/myths-and-facts-hillary-clintons-email-and-reports-top-secret-materials)** > > Media are exploiting news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as "top secret" to push myths about Clinton's handling... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=14)