# 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:** 5
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/81 "2016-01-30T16:42:40Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > We’d like to hear how this causes you to believe that “presumed classified” doesn’t mean “classified”. I’ve never known of an official category called “presumed classified” – in my experience it means “this might be classified so either make sure it’s not or treat it like it’s classified”. There is a lot more grey area in this stuff than most people realize. It’s quite common for a low level guy to have some info that he wants to send, but isn’t sure if it’s classified or not, take it to his boss and say “is this data classified?”; and then the boss says yes or no, and the worker treats it as his boss says. Occasionally the boss might be wrong (and I’ve seen this happen), but I’ve never seen it treated as a criminal matter. > [@](#): > > It may have happened - but it wouldn’t (and indeed couldn’t) have happened instantly to every piece of info originating from a foreign government. So storing such on a private server was a violation of the law. Cite that every piece of foreign government information Hillary ever saw or handled was placed and stored on Hillary’s server. Did she scan every communique she got and upload it? Did she transcribe every conversation she had and store it electronically? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/82 "2016-01-30T17:10:55Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > Not the way I understand the situation after watching several news reviews. As i understand it they were, are now, will be for some time above top secret. > > Of course could be my lying eyes and ears, that might be the next excuse. Read the link in the post I was responding to. I clearly states they were not. Here: > [@](#): > > The State Department said the messages were “top secret” and could not be released. > > Spokesman John Kirby said the emails were not marked classified at the time they were sent. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/83 "2016-01-30T17:38:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You need to read (a), (b), (c) and others, clearly the issue of intent is key. In (e) and (f), intent is not key - indeed, it’s not mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/84 "2016-01-30T17:59:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve never known of an official category called “presumed classified” It comes from this [2009 Executive Order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information), which states that information is originally classified if “the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security”. A subsequent paragraph states “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” > [@](#): > > Cite that every piece of foreign government information Hillary ever saw or handled was placed and stored on Hillary’s server. It’s hard to make sense of this cite request. It would be a violation if even one piece of foreign government info was on a private server without first being declassified. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/85 "2016-01-30T18:01:00Z")
Recently preceding posts in this thread only go a long way towards illustrating how little, if any, most of the posters here know about classified information and the networks and systems that contain it. You can believe anything posted in the media contains little or no reference to these “things,” and really should refrain from speculating on matters about which you know little or nothing. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/86 "2016-01-30T18:01:11Z")
IANAL but istm that (e) would not apply. If they charged her under (f) they’d only have to show “gross negligence”. Kind of doubt that’s going to happen. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/87 "2016-01-30T18:02:19Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > In (e) and (f), intent is not key - indeed, it’s not mentioned. Just saying, avoiding the context is not a good idea, unless you are looking to be disappointed. e and f are not the whole thing, what you are doing is just like the republicans did with their last big fiasco at the supreme court regarding Obamacare. You are not only trying to dismiss intent from the part of the one that maybe could be accused, but you are also dismissing the intent of the law too. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/88 "2016-01-30T18:02:42Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > Recently preceding posts in this thread only go a long way towards illustrating how little, if any, most of the posters here know about classified information and the networks and systems that contain it. You can believe anything posted in the media contains little or no reference to these “things,” and really should refrain from speculating on matters about which you know little or nothing. Oooh! Appeal to (anonymous even) Authority! Now do Strawman! ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/89 "2016-01-30T18:10:31Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > Oooh! Appeal to (anonymous even) Authority! Now do Strawman! Even fallacies have exceptions to the rule. Would you believe that? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/90 "2016-01-30T18:11:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > … e and f are not the whole thing Actions don’t have to violate every provision of a law to be illegal - just one will suffice. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/91 "2016-01-30T18:11:47Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > It comes from this [2009 Executive Order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information), which states that information is originally classified if “the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security”. A subsequent paragraph states “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” This doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. There’s no official category called “presumed classified”. > [@](#): > > It’s hard to make sense of this cite request. It would be a violation if even one piece of foreign government info was on a private server without first being declassified. So what information was on the server, and how do you know that it was not declassified (or classified in the first place)? What pieces of “foreign government info” were placed on Hillary’s server? You said that it’s impossible that such info could have been declassified before being placed on Hillary’s server. How do you know this? ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/92 "2016-01-30T18:14:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So what information was on the server, and how do you know that it was not declassified (or classified in the first place)? What pieces of “foreign government info” were placed on Hillary’s server? You said that it’s impossible that such info could have been declassified before being placed on Hillary’s server. How do you know this? Wouldn’t you like to know!? :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/93 "2016-01-30T18:18:39Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > Oooh! Appeal to (anonymous even) Authority! Now do Strawman! Well, I linked already to this long winded debunking and “really you guys are exaggerating this issue” links to people with expertise that were interviewed early. > **[A Comprehensive Guide To Myths And Facts About Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, and...](https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/comprehensive-guide-myths-and-facts-about-hillary-clinton-benghazi-and-those-emails)** > > On October 22, Hillary Clinton will testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi regarding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi and her use... One sample, very related as Issa is claiming that the FBI would love to indict Hillary (notice the weasel wording of it, not that the FBI will, only that they would love to do it): > [@](#): > > Wash Post Fact Checker: “Absurd” To Claim Clinton’s Signature On Cable Shows She Personally Approved Security Reduction. Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler awarded four Pinocchios to the claim – made in 2013 by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Fox News – that Clinton’s signature is evidence that she had personal knowledge of the security reduction. He dismissed the notion as a “whopper” As noted already, the mainstream media has already fallen fat on their face several times with inaccuracies, and the right wing media never tells their readers about the corrections. There is a need by the media to organize a horse race in the presidential race so Hillary’s numbers will have to go down and this way is the best chance they have, as unlikely as it can produce what they claim it can, the important thing is to keep the controversy going. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/94 "2016-01-30T18:20:28Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Actions don’t have to violate every provision of a law to be illegal - just one will suffice. And tap dancing around is not convincing, that would still have to be demonstrated to had a willingness to cause harm to the USA. Otherwise the result is almost telegraphed: Hillary can get a black eye for this, but a grand jury is not going to ignore the part of intent, meaning that the most likely outcome is still for Hillary to not get much of a punishment for it. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/95 "2016-01-30T18:23:55Z")
Are you sure? I am not a Hillary-hater but section (f) looks specifically crafted to take intent out. “Gross negligence” surely doesn’t mean intended to be grossly negligent with a willingness to harm the country. Eta: I understand legalese doesn’t always follow common word usage so I am honestly asking. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/96 "2016-01-30T18:26:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They weren’t marked that way, but it doesn’t actually matter. If the info is secret, the info is secret. If she’d used a .gov account, wouldn’t have been an issue. Not necessarily. The DoD has classified and non-classified networks. Any government agency that has classified info will have similar systems. She could have received classified information on an unclassified government account. The private server is not a violation of law or regulation. Marked or not, a senior official should have been able to recognize information that should be classified. The “it was not marked” puts her competence in question more than putting her legal status in question. The one scenario to mitigate would be if the info was not classified based on content (state dpt. view) but is classified because of what it reveals about intelligence capabilities (cia view). That is part of the recent issue. The Intel IG says classified and the State Deptartment says it wasn’t. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/97 "2016-01-30T18:37:26Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Are you sure? I am not a Hillary-hater but section (f) looks specifically crafted to take intent out. “Gross negligence” surely doesn’t mean intended to be grossly negligent with a willingness to harm the country. > > Eta: I understand legalese doesn’t always follow common word usage so I am honestly asking. IMHO this goes just like the intent of the people that made the ACA law, the Republicans did make enough hay to take it to the supreme court, and lost. But just like that law I do not think that just because you are not mentioning what applies, like a “whereas”, that then automatically the intention mentioned everywhere and many times is dismissed. And then one has to remember, it is really ridiculous to accuse someone of Gross negligence when the emails were not classified top secret when the incident took place. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/98 "2016-01-30T18:50:57Z")
Oh I agree - I doubt they could show gross negligence. If I had to bet, I’d guess the Clintons’ server was as secure as any government one as well. It just looked to me that the purpose of that section of the law was explicitly meant to take bad intent out of the equation. Not like a misplaced “whereas”. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/99 "2016-01-30T20:06:39Z")
> [@Maserschmidt](#): > > Are you kidding? This could be twice as significant! I can’t wait for 22 hours of asshats grilling her trying to squeeze out one bit of campaignable material. Just wait for the Michael Bay movie! ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/100 "2016-01-30T20:13:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There’s no official category called “presumed classified”. I know of no claim by anyone that this is an “official” category. But it’s clear that, until determined otherwise, foreign government info is to be considered classified - it needs no official stamp or designation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=6)