# 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:** 16
**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 9, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/301 "2016-02-09T20:51:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I know there may be information in the classified system that is marked classified but really contains no classified material. Maybe it was misclassified, or maybe the classification headers were just added automatically when it was added to the system. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you and I and Hillary would agree that the material really shouldn’t be classified. > > My question is, does that mean you or I or Hillary can unilaterally decide, on our own judgment, that this was misclassified and simply re-type it into an unclassified E-mail, stripped of its classifications? And that a valid defence if questioned would be, “Hey, the material obviously shouldn’t have been classified.” It depends on the specifics, but yes, it’s possible that that’s a valid defense. ---
**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 9, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/302 "2016-02-09T21:11:10Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > My question is, does that mean you or I or Hillary can unilaterally decide, on our own judgment, that this was misclassified and simply re-type it into an unclassified E-mail, stripped of its classifications? And that a valid defence if questioned would be, “Hey, the material obviously shouldn’t have been classified.” > > Or, do you have to go through a procedure? Does there have to be a formal request or other process for getting that material out of the system, and does it need to be approved by someone responsible for it? It depends. Who added the classified markings? Was it an SoS staff flunkie by mistake (or just because they didn’t know better)? If so (and this is extremely common), their supervisor will routinely just remove the classified markings without going higher up. In other words, if I accidentally stamp my grocery list with a “Top Secret” stamp, I don’t have to go through a procedure to declassify it. I can just white it out or rip it off and shred it. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/303 "2016-02-10T02:21:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Does a similar process exist in government? Do they need to have a paper trail when material is removed from the classification system? Do they need records of how much material was misclassified in the first place, and how much of it has been removed? Do they demand oversight of this process in case there’s a reason for the classification the end user might not realize or understand? Yes, yes, yes and YES. More stringent than you could possibly imagine. ---
**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 10, 2016, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/304 "2016-02-10T13:30:09Z")
I’m struggling to reconcile the focus on e-mail servers and classification here with the Valery Plame affair. In the Plame affair, no criminal charges were filed for leaking classified information - the only criminal charges were for lying to investigators. In other words, recent history would suggest that even the deliberate release of classified information to journalists would not result in criminal prosecution (as long as you don’t lie about it). From here: [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair) > [@wiki](#): > > Novak had learned of Plame’s employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage.[2] David Corn and others suggested that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson’s article. The scandal led to a criminal investigation; **no one was charged for the leak itself.** Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators. His prison sentence was ultimately commuted by President Bush. Does anything that Mrs. Clinton is accused of even rise to the level of deliberately disclosing classified information to the media? An act itself which apparently isn’t worthy of criminal prosecution (at least not consistently - although the below link does include one counter example). Note - [this article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-laufman/prosecuting-leaks_b_1585193.html)has some interesting information regarding the challenges of prosecuting leaks of classified information. ---
**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 10, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/305 "2016-02-10T13:57:41Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > Yes, yes, yes and YES. More stringent than you could possibly imagine. Careful with this guy. He had to register his hands as deadly weapons. And he has a secret rainbow belt in Judo. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/306 "2016-02-10T14:35:39Z")
> [@Kiber](#): > > Does anything that Mrs. Clinton is accused of even rise to the level of deliberately disclosing classified information to the media? You need to understand the different levels of classification and plethora of ways in which it can be compromised before any meaningful discussion can take place. I’ll repeat for the newcomers: This not a “leak” episode, it involves the highest level of classification. It is “systemic” in it’s origin and nature, and most likely deliberately executed by the targets of the investigation due to the stringent controls placed on systems, products and personnel clearances in this category. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/307 "2016-02-10T15:03:52Z")
It’s not really an episode at all. If there was genuine concern that criminal activity had taken place, Congress would have revived the office of the special prosecutor. The FBI generally doesn’t handle investigations into top-level executive branch officials because of the inherent conflict of interest. This is, and always has been, a purely political witchhunt. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/308 "2016-02-10T15:08:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > This is, and always has been, a purely political witchhunt. Actually what it is, is a purely political cover-up, for reasons you just stated. The FBI needs to be in there to try and preempt anything going terribly “wrong” for Mrs. Clinton. ---
**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 10, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/309 "2016-02-10T15:09:13Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > You need to understand the different levels of classification and plethora of ways in which it can be compromised before any meaningful discussion can take place. > > I’ll repeat for the newcomers: This not a “leak” episode, it involves the highest level of classification. It is “systemic” in it’s origin and nature, and most likely deliberately executed by the targets of the investigation due to the stringent controls placed on systems, products and personnel clearances in this category. Oh dear - a bolded sigh? I do understand the different levels of classification - holding several myself. What I don’t understand is why storing information in a way that _could_ be compromised is somehow worse than just handing over information directly to a journalist. The bottom line is that most of the controls and penalties in place for the handling of classified information are administrative in nature and handled within each Department. [Here’s](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85691.pdf) the relevant document for classifying / declassifying material from the DoS. However, any criminal element is much less clear cut as previous cites have shown. Wasn’t it Dick Cheney who said, paraphrasing here - that he couldn’t be accused of releasing classified information, since if he released it, by definition he must be declassifying it? I could be misremembering. Actually - [here’s](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203525.html) some more information on Cheney’s views and a broader discussion of handling classified material at the highest levels (Congress and the White House). > [@FBI Report](#): > > “The vice president advised that it is possible to talk about something contained in a classified document without violating the law regarding declassification,” according to the FBI report. So again - I struggle with a disconnect. Apparently it’s quite bad for Mrs. Clinton to store classified information in a way that **could** lead to its release. But not so bad for the **actual release** of classified information - at least when done by others. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/310 "2016-02-10T15:21:54Z")
> [@Kiber](#): > > The bottom line is that most of the controls and penalties in place for the handling of classified information are administrative in nature and handled within each Department. Tell that to the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hansen, etc. You must have missed the part where I said it was starting to look deliberate. Mishandling? Bwa, ha, haaa… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/311 "2016-02-10T15:23:35Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > Actually what it is, is a purely political cover-up, for reasons you just stated. The FBI needs to be in there to try and preempt anything going terribly “wrong” for Mrs. Clinton. And the same GOP-controlled Congress that has held dozens of hearings on Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing is not taking any serious action because…? ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/312 "2016-02-10T15:24:22Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > It depends on the specifics, but yes, it’s possible that that’s a valid defense. Anything’s possible, but I don’t think it’s likely in this case. I don’t work for State, I work for DoD. And I know that SECDEF has some latitude, but it’s only for classification that was classified by DoD, not some other agency. State may have other rules. My bigger issue with this would be that there is a lot of space between TS SCI and UNCLAS. Perhaps Hillary or her staff had some TS SCI and felt it was over classified. So they went from TS SCI, past TS, past SECRET, past CONFIDENTIAL past NOFORN (which isn’t a true classification) right to UNCLAS. I’m not going into specifics, but I’ve seen issues that I thought were over classified, but I honestly can’t think of a document or paragraph labeled TS (not to mention TS SCI) that I though was really UNCLAS. And it’s hard to image that was correctly done, on the fly at State. ---
**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 10, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/313 "2016-02-10T15:36:42Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I honestly can’t think of a document or paragraph labeled TS (not to mention TS SCI) that I though was really UNCLAS. And it’s hard to image that was correctly done, on the fly at State. Sure, and if it were marked TS SCI and someone decided to strip the header and make it UNCLAS, they’d have to have some pretty damn good justification to back it up. But we know that’s not what happened here, because none of the information on her email server was ever marked TS SCI and nobody has argued otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/314 "2016-02-10T15:47:14Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Sure, and if it were marked TS SCI and someone decided to strip the header and make it UNCLAS, they’d have to have some pretty damn good justification to back it up. But we know that’s not what happened here, because none of the information on her email server was ever marked TS SCI and nobody has argued otherwise. I don’t know that’s what happened here. I think the FBI will look into whether or not the classification was stripped from a previously classified document. What I’m saying is one gets a pretty good feel for what is classified and what isn’t. And to transmit email in the clear that you felt was UNCLASS that is subsequently found to the TS SCI is a big issue to me. There is a huge difference between TS and UNCLASS. And while I don’t have nearly the responsibility or the volume of email that she has, I find it hard to believe that neither she nor her staff stopped and asked about this as it was being emailed back and forth. While it doesn’t happen every day, we do trade emails that say “heh, I’m not sure what level this is lets go to the high side” or “I’m not comfortable trading emails on this, let’s meet at my office.” And if it happened on a .gov account, that spillage would have been much more easily contained. ---
**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 10, 2016, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/315 "2016-02-10T15:52:28Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Sure, and if it were marked TS SCI and someone decided to strip the header and make it UNCLAS, they’d have to have some pretty damn good justification to back it up. But we know that’s not what happened here, because none of the information on her email server was ever marked TS SCI and nobody has argued otherwise. How would it be marked TS SCI if they were stripping the classification headers while transcribing it from the secure system to her E-mail account? Hillary keeps saying that nothing in her system was marked classified. Is that a defence? If the material was actually TS SCI but didn’t have markings indicating such, and was found on a server outside the secure system, doesn’t that just indicate that someone intentionally stripped the headers off it? She seems to be making a distinction between material that wasn’t classified at the time, which seems to me to be a valid defence legally but not necessarily reflecting well on her judgement, and material that just wasn’t ‘marked’ classified, even though it was in fact classified material. Every time she carefully says, “I never had any information that was \*marked \*classified” it sounds like a little like arguing over what the definition of ‘is’ is. ---
**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 10, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/316 "2016-02-10T16:00:54Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I don’t know that’s what happened here. I think the FBI will look into whether or not the classification was stripped from a previously classified document. > > What I’m saying is one gets a pretty good feel for what is classified and what isn’t. And to transmit email in the clear that you felt was UNCLASS that is subsequently found to the TS SCI is a big issue to me. There is a huge difference between TS and UNCLASS. And while I don’t have nearly the responsibility or the volume of email that she has, I find it hard to believe that neither she nor her staff stopped and asked about this as it was being emailed back and forth. While it doesn’t happen every day, we do trade emails that say “heh, I’m not sure what level this is lets go to the high side” or “I’m not comfortable trading emails on this, let’s meet at my office.” And if it happened on a .gov account, that spillage would have been much more easily contained. I agree, and in my job there are things we talk about on the unclass side and things we talk about on the other side, and it’s pretty clear which is which and we know when we get close to that line. Those are the things we work with regularly, and if something that we worked with regularly showed up in the NY Times we’d know damn well that it shouldn’t be out there and we wouldn’t dare talk about it on the unclass side because we’ve been trained not to. But I don’t know how I’d feel if someone pored through my 15 year unclass email history and said to me, “Hey, see this thing that you talked about a handful of times, that’s only tangentially related to your job and you’re not really all that familiar with outside of having read it in the NY Times? Well, ends up we consider it classified TS and you’re in trouble.” I’d probably feel that they were being silly, and say something along the lines of what Colin Powell said. As I said, it all depends on the specifics. ---
**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 10, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/317 "2016-02-10T16:05:45Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > How would it be marked TS SCI if they were stripping the classification headers while transcribing it from the secure system to her E-mail account? Information about a specific drone strike is probably contained in a document somewhere marked TS. If that exact same information, word for word, punctuation and spelling errors included, ends up on Hillary’s email server, then yes, it would seem to be that someone stripped the classification headers at some point. However, if that same information was also in an Al Jazeera article, collected from eyewitnesses by a reporter on the ground, it might still be considered classified TS by the agency that conducted the drone strike, but anyone who copied the text of the article would have no clue. That is to say, if you download certain Al Jazeera articles to your computer right now, you could be in possession of top secret material that was never marked as such to the best of your knowledge. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFICS. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Hillary keeps saying that nothing in her system was marked classified. Is that a defence? If the material was actually TS SCI but didn’t have markings indicating such, and was found on a server outside the secure system, doesn’t that just indicate that someone intentionally stripped the headers off it? No, not necessarily, see above. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > She seems to be making a distinction between material that wasn’t classified at the time, which seems to me to be a valid defence legally but not necessarily reflecting well on her judgement, and material that just wasn’t ‘marked’ classified, even though it was in fact classified material. Every time she carefully says, “I never had any information that was \*marked \*classified” it sounds like a little like arguing over what the definition of ‘is’ is. A NY Times article that lists details of the NSA’s domestic spying program sourced from the Snowden leak almost certainly contains A) classified material and B) no markings. If you download that article, congratulations, you now possess classified material. ---
**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 10, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/318 "2016-02-10T16:14:16Z")
Let’s also remember that Bill Clinton was absolutely right to question the definition of “is” and **Sam Stone** and any other non-idiot would have done the exact same thing in that circumstance. At issue with Bill Clinton was his earlier statement “there’s nothing going on between us,” referring to Lewinsky at a time after their affair had ended. Republicans wanted to send Clinton to jail on the theory (among others) that that statement was a criminal lie even though there was indeed “nothing going on between” them. Republicans were upset that the statement seemed to suggest that there was never anything going on between them. In the context of a criminal prosecution for perjury, the pedantic definition of the words used in an answer is pretty damn important, and any reasonable person would insist that they not be prosecuted for a statement that was literally true. Indeed, any non-idiot would in that context have fought a perjury charge by insisting on the literal truth of the statement at issue. It is held up in collective memory as some kind of overly clever lawyerism, but it wasn’t at all. “There’s nothing going on,” has a pretty clear meaning that is not “there has never been anything going on.” ---
**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 10, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/319 "2016-02-10T16:22:20Z")
I think there’s some confusion about what “retroactive classification” means. It doesn’t mean that the CIA or whoever didn’t consider the _information_ classified when it was sent, because it’s almost certain that they did. It simply means that the emails in question weren’t created as classified documents. They were created as unclassified emails, and then retroactively classified during their review. In my above example, it’d be no different than if the CIA raided the Al Jazeera offices, confiscated all copies of the drone strike article (which was created as an unclassified news item), and marked them as classified. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/320 "2016-02-10T17:15:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And the same GOP-controlled Congress that has held dozens of hearings on Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing is not taking any serious action because…? They are in the same boat as you and Hillary: Clueless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=17)