# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/141 "2016-02-01T18:30:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, classified information, not unclassified then as even the people that now are doing so do report. The Clinton camp and Clinton followers can report anything they wish. It’s the FBI who’s doing the investigating and they haven’t reached a conclusion yet. But the FBI did add more agents to the investigation. That never sounds like a good thing for whomever they’re investigating. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/142 "2016-02-01T18:33:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The Clinton camp and Clinton followers can report anything they wish. It’s the FBI who’s doing the investigating and they haven’t reached a conclusion yet. But the FBI did add more agents to the investigation. That never sounds like a good thing for whomever they’re investigating. Yeah, I remember a lot of FBI agents investigating Bridgegate. And I recall you had the same view then. ---
**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 1, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/143 "2016-02-01T18:37:47Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > If yourself and Mr. Gyrate had the slightest clue about how classified information systems and networks are certified, operated and controlled, you would agree with me. It is the bane of information security managers everywhere. Networking makes this type of misdeed many orders of magnitude more devastating than anything one person could ever say. Characterizing it as stupid is really an understatement. I’ve never seen any classified material that wasn’t publicly leaked. I know nothing about classified material handling standards. I don’t have any personal knowledge of how closely the precise rules are followed, or what is typical for violations. But I will admit my bias is that Martin Hyde’s explanation sounds a lot more credible than yours. But - either of you have any independent cites to back up what you’re saying? You know, to make this more than, “Hey, trust me! I’m a random guy on the internet!” ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/144 "2016-02-01T18:42:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “It wasn’t marked” isn’t irrelevant, but it’s certainly not the final answer – information can be classified whether or not it’s marked. At this point there’s no way to know, based on the information publicly available, whether the stuff people emailed to her was classified or not when it was emailed. Maybe at some point we’ll have enough info to make a judgment, but not yet. We can, and should, make a judgement now. Clinton was emailed information that should have been classified twelve hundred (1200!) times. Clinton claims that, in every single case she is so ignorant that she couldn’t tell that the information should be classified. Apparently, according to Clinton, someone more knowledgeable than her had to make that determination. Additionally, of those 1200 emails, 22 were ‘Top Secret’ and Clinton was unable to figure that out by herself. And, to make this stupidity even more clear, if you buy Clintons excuse then you have to assume that Clinton believed that in her job as Secretary of State she would never receive emails with classified information. Stop and think about that one for a minute. Her excuse does not fly since it can be blown apart by asking ‘Mrs. Clinton, what exactly were you planning to do if someone sent email to your personal server that was marked classified?’ She doesn’t, and can’t, have an answer to that. According to reports, there were emails with ‘Talent Keyhole’ information. Talent Keyhole is satellite intelligence and is classified by default. Period. There is no question on the classification on this. Yet Clinton, by her own admission, had no way of knowing this because it wasn’t marked. Additionally, it is being reported (though I really hope the F.B.I. finishes their investigation soon, I hate relying on second hand info) she had operational intelligence in her email. Operational intelligence includes sources and methods and is classified by default, there is no question about this. Yet Clinton had to rely on markings instead of her own judgement. Really? Either Clinton is too stupid to be President\*, or she is straight up lying or knowingly mishandled classified information. Both should disqualify her from being President. Slee \*I don’t for a moment believe Clinton is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/145 "2016-02-01T19:31:29Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Yeah, I remember a lot of FBI agents investigating Bridgegate. And I recall you had the same view then. There were several investigations into Bridgegate and the bottom line is that the Democrats and media outlets were unable to prove Christie guilty. Doesn’t stop them from still claiming that Christie must be guilty. It’s just that they just couldn’t find any facts that proved Christie guilty. I’m in favor of investigations. Let the chips fall where they may. It took eight investigations before Hillary even admitted that she had a personal server and that her personal server contained government documents. The FBI chose to add agents to their investigation of who, what, where, and why government documents were so poorly protected. It’s possible that the FBI won’t find any incriminating evidence that points to Hillary’s malfeasance. Then again, they might. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/146 "2016-02-01T19:41:00Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > I’ve never seen any classified material that wasn’t publicly leaked. I know nothing about classified material handling standards. I don’t have any personal knowledge of how closely the precise rules are followed, or what is typical for violations. But I will admit my bias is that Martin Hyde’s explanation sounds a lot more credible than yours. But - either of you have any independent cites to back up what you’re saying? You know, to make this more than, “Hey, trust me! I’m a random guy on the internet!” I mean, he sounds like the kind of people who, back when I was in the military, who would harp on about classified information as though the entire country would literally implode if you fucked up with it. He’s not wrong that “on paper” the control of such information is tight, and there are strict policies, and that’s it’s improper to violate them. But he’s also not speaking from reality. Leaks happen all the time, literally every year thousands of things get leaked. Some deliberately, some not. Bradley Manning and Ed Snowden were neither the first or the last to deliberately leak info. Stuff has been improperly transmitted before, sent unencrypted when it shouldn’t have been and etc. People have spouted off classified info to friends and acquaintances when they shouldn’t have etc. [This](http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol127_pozen.pdf) is a pretty good summary of the realities, and legalities, of classified information. The very first paragraph pretty well reflects my experience: > [@](#): > > The United States government leaks like a sieve. Presidents denounce the constant flow of classified information to the media from unauthorized, anonymous sources. National security professionals decry the consequences. And yet the laws against leaking are almost never enforced. Throughout U.S. history, roughly a dozen criminal cases have been brought against suspected leakers. There is a dramatic disconnect between the way our laws and our leaders condemn leaking in the abstract and the way they condone it in practice. Like I said, I had to have a TS clearance a few different times for some of the jobs I held while in the Army. In my experience, this was just a mostly useless hassle. Some jobs you may deal with important classified information that are legitimately issues of grave national importance–the stuff that came across my desk was mostly stuff that again, you could’ve published on the front page of the New York Times and it’d have meant nothing (in fact it wouldn’t make the front page–there’s a practice of over-classifying things.) The only stuff I ever ran into that would’ve been materially important were certain operating specifications of military equipment–but keep in mind even that stuff, most of our enemies like Russia and China probably already know that information anyway. None of this excuses improperly handling classified information, because it’s always been my position you need to follow the rules and procedures, and that it isn’t the job of _individual_ soldiers or civil servants to determine what should be released to the public or not. I’ve said Clinton was wrong in what she did, but I’ve also said it’s typical, and not worthy of disqualifying someone from the Presidency over. ---
**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 1, 2016, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/147 "2016-02-01T19:52:20Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > We can, and should, make a judgement now. > > Clinton was emailed information that should have been classified twelve hundred (1200!) times. Clinton claims that, in every single case she is so ignorant that she couldn’t tell that the information should be classified. Apparently, according to Clinton, someone more knowledgeable than her had to make that determination. > > Additionally, of those 1200 emails, 22 were ‘Top Secret’ and Clinton was unable to figure that out by herself. > > And, to make this stupidity even more clear, if you buy Clintons excuse then you have to assume that Clinton believed that in her job as Secretary of State she would never receive emails with classified information. > > Stop and think about that one for a minute. > > Her excuse does not fly since it can be blown apart by asking ‘Mrs. Clinton, what exactly were you planning to do if someone sent email to your personal server that was marked classified?’ She doesn’t, and can’t, have an answer to that. > > According to reports, there were emails with ‘Talent Keyhole’ information. Talent Keyhole is satellite intelligence and is classified by default. Period. There is no question on the classification on this. > > Yet Clinton, by her own admission, had no way of knowing this because it wasn’t marked. Additionally, it is being reported (though I really hope the F.B.I. finishes their investigation soon, I hate relying on second hand info) she had operational intelligence in her email. Operational intelligence includes sources and methods and is classified by default, there is no question about this. > > Yet Clinton had to rely on markings instead of her own judgement. Really? > > Either Clinton is too stupid to be President\*, or she is straight up lying or knowingly mishandled classified information. Both should disqualify her from being President. > > Slee > > \*I don’t for a moment believe Clinton is stupid. 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? ---
**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 1, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/148 "2016-02-01T19:54:36Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I mean, he sounds like the kind of people who, back when I was in the military, who would harp on about classified information as though the entire country would literally implode if you fucked up with it. He’s not wrong that “on paper” the control of such information is tight, and there are strict policies, and that’s it’s improper to violate them. > > But he’s also not speaking from reality. Leaks happen all the time, literally every year thousands of things get leaked. Some deliberately, some not. Bradley Manning and Ed Snowden were neither the first or the last to deliberately leak info. Stuff has been improperly transmitted before, sent unencrypted when it shouldn’t have been and etc. People have spouted off classified info to friends and acquaintances when they shouldn’t have etc. > > [This](http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol127_pozen.pdf) is a pretty good summary of the realities, and legalities, of classified information. The very first paragraph pretty well reflects my experience: > > Like I said, I had to have a TS clearance a few different times for some of the jobs I held while in the Army. In my experience, this was just a mostly useless hassle. Some jobs you may deal with important classified information that are legitimately issues of grave national importance–the stuff that came across my desk was mostly stuff that again, you could’ve published on the front page of the New York Times and it’d have meant nothing (in fact it wouldn’t make the front page–there’s a practice of over-classifying things.) The only stuff I ever ran into that would’ve been materially important were certain operating specifications of military equipment–but keep in mind even that stuff, most of our enemies like Russia and China probably already know that information anyway. > > None of this excuses improperly handling classified information, because it’s always been my position you need to follow the rules and procedures, and that it isn’t the job of _individual_ soldiers or civil servants to determine what should be released to the public or not. I’ve said Clinton was wrong in what she did, but I’ve also said it’s typical, and not worthy of disqualifying someone from the Presidency over. This mostly jives with my experience working with classified material in the Navy (active duty, and now as a Navy civilian). ---
**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 1, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/149 "2016-02-01T20:35:05Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > If yourself and Mr. Gyrate had the slightest clue about how classified information systems and networks are certified, operated and controlled, you would agree with me. It is the bane of information security managers everywhere. Networking makes this type of misdeed many orders of magnitude more devastating than anything one person could ever say. Characterizing it as stupid is really an understatement. I do have experience with those sorts of information systems, and if that’s your only perspective, then it makes perfect sense. The rules for handling information that exists on a classified network and is appropriately marked, or even if it isn’t, are very clear, and following those rules is a Very Big Deal. However, I’m a systems guy, not an intel guy, so I’m only tangentially aware that what Martin Hyde described is absolutely true; there’s an epidemic of over-classification. Information that’s public knowledge can become classified if someone looks at it sideways, and so there’s lots of information floating around that’s classified, technically, sure, but also ridiculously so. If you can get it from Wikipedia, is it really classified? Yes, says the government, but those of us with common sense are left to wonder. > [@Xema](#): > > I just came across this [Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement](https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_NDAS/1/DOC_0C05833708/C05833708.pdf) signed by Hillary in 2009 when she became SoS. The first paragraph includes: > > This seems to clearly say that the argument “but it wasn’t marked classified” she and her supporters have been spinning for many months is entirely irrelevant. What if I were to tell you, right now, that this NDA was actually classified (it’s not obviously, but bear with me). The FOIA release was a mistake and it’s since been taken down; but it’s now been re-hosted on dozens of news servers around the world and is effectively public knowledge. However, the government hasn’t yet revoked the classification. It would be true, then, that you’ve transmitted (unmarked) classified information. It would be also true that you haven’t really done anything wrong. See the confusion? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/150 "2016-02-01T21:06:33Z")
At least Obama pretended to care about transparency. Doesn’t really matter if she’s guilty or not, Hillary is too well connected to ever face real consequences. Are there any prevailing CTs about what she spent all that time and effort to hide? Clinton foundation stuff? Sweet deals with foreign business interests? The best place to get pirmo kush? What? ---
**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 1, 2016, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/151 "2016-02-01T21:18:05Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > [This](http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol127_pozen.pdf) is a pretty good summary of the realities, and legalities, of classified information. The very first paragraph pretty well reflects my experience: Thanks. As the document is 100+ pages, I haven’t read it yet, but I skimmed through the intro, and this certainly appears to be a good cite backing up your POV. I eagerly await **UberArchetype** ’s cite. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/152 "2016-02-01T21:23:35Z")
> [@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) … Note that **sleestak** did not assert this. > [@](#): > > … is contrary to the facts as I am aware of them. Do you have a cite for all these claims? Is something preventing you from supplying these facts? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/153 "2016-02-01T21:42:01Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > It would be true, then, that you’ve transmitted (unmarked) classified information. It would be also true that you haven’t really done anything wrong. See the confusion? If the classified stuff found on Hillary’s private server proves to consist solely of material previously made public by others, then I’d say her culpability in all this is considerably less than if this isn’t the case. (I’d still say she’s been spectacularly bad at her job of safeguarding classified info.) I’m skeptical that even a substantial percentage will prove to have been previously made public. ---
**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 1, 2016, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/154 "2016-02-01T21:48:12Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Is something preventing you from supplying these facts? Huh? **Sleestak** made some uncited factual claims. **iiandyiiii** asked him to cite them. Seems like a reasonable ask - it’s not like these were clear opinions or facts that everyone takes for granted. There’s nothing unreasonable about that. In fact, that’s how it works around here. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/155 "2016-02-01T22:22:40Z")
Here’s what happened with the Hillary email “scandal”: Other than those who would be gunning for her anyway, **nobody cares.** I doubt there’s a single voter in America who sincerely thinks, “I would consider voting for Clinton, but this email scandal gives me pause.” ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/156 "2016-02-01T23:20:35Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Leaks happen all the time, … Careful Martin - this is not a leak. You have exposed the fact that you do not even understand what is being discussed. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/157 "2016-02-01T23:22:13Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > … this was just a mostly useless hassle… You have also exposed the fact that you have very casual attitude towards protecting classified information. Like Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![HeXen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@HeXen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeXen)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/158 "2016-02-01T23:36:12Z")
Just something I’ve noticed about classified information. every time it’s breached, our security remains no worse because of it. Truth is, some countries spy and already had knowledge of classified info and historically it’s a well documented fact…yet here we are, still America. I see no evidence to suggest that what Hilary did is going to change anything, our govt is just paranoid and full of irrational fear. I also noticed it seems a lot of classified information doesn’t really need to be classified, it’s often used to protect the shady business of agencies. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/159 "2016-02-01T23:55:47Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > **Sleestak** made some uncited factual claims. **iiandyiiii** asked him to cite them. **iiandyiiii** also mentioned “facts as I am aware of them” that are contrary. Why not present those contrary facts? ---
**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 1, 2016, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/160 "2016-02-01T23:59:55Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > **iiandyiiii** also mentioned “facts as I am aware of them” that are contrary. Why not present those contrary facts? That we don’t know the classification of the emails at the time they were sent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=9)