# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/161 "2016-02-02T00:07:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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.” Here’s an audience comment to her at a recent event in Iowa (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > It feels like there is a lot of young people like myself who are very passionate supporters of Bernie Sanders. And, I just don’t see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you. In fact, **I’ve heard from quite a few people my age that they think you’re dishonest** , but I’d like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm isn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/162 "2016-02-02T00:18:54Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > 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. And I’m skeptical that any of it will prove to be otherwise. The most damning information we have comes from an anonymous source, who GIGObuster quoted in post #108: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > [QUOTE=Politico] > The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said. > > The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan. > > The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times. > > “Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.” [Politico, 1/19/16] [/QUOTE] Now read through all of that very carefully and tell me that doesn’t sound exactly the sort of “already public” information that I’m talking about. Sure, it could be that there’s some other massive trove of very damning top secret information that they’ve found, but why wouldn’t they lead with that? It seems to me that if you’re going to leak information about what’s in the emails, you’re going to lead with the worst stuff; assuming that’s true, then the worst stuff doesn’t seem very bad. I could be wrong, of course. I’d like to see this email thing tank Hilary for other reasons, but mishandling of classified information seems like a stretch. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/163 "2016-02-02T00:22:47Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > **iiandyiiii** also mentioned “facts as I am aware of them” that are contrary. Why not present those contrary facts? Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. And **UberArchetype** , still waiting to see that cite from ya… It’s coming any moment now, right? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/164 "2016-02-02T00:26:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That we don’t know the classification of the emails at the time they were sent. A couple of problems with this: We do know that some emails contained foreign government information, which (as discussed above) is considered automatically classified. (It would be tough to say how the SoS could hope to do her job without regularly receiving such info - which is another way of saying that deciding to use a private, unsecured server is pretty much a promise that security will be violated.) There’s also the issue of how to square this with the requirements of the NDA she signed, which said that she must safeguard “unclassified information that meets the standards for classification”. ---
**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 2, 2016, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/165 "2016-02-02T00:30:41Z")
So, if I sent Mrs. Clinton an email news account of President Obama’s chat about drone strikes, she could be in trouble for receiving classified information on her personal account? That’s interesting. Personally, I think the person who sends classified information has crossed the line more than some poor soul who only receives the email (especially when the email isn’t marked "classified’) It’s not Hillary’s fault that people may have sent her things they shouldn’t have. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/166 "2016-02-02T00:32:22Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > And **UberArchetype** , still waiting to see that cite from ya… It’s coming any moment now, right? I don’t know what it was I said that would invoke the requirement for a cite. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/167 "2016-02-02T00:38:57Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > So, if I sent Mrs. Clinton an email news account of President Obama’s chat about drone strikes, she could be in trouble for receiving classified information on her personal account? That’s interesting. You could not possibly do that. If classified information was contained in a news account (made public), it would no longer be classified. The subsequent investigation would focus on the source (reporter, or news media people) and the People/systems with access to it along the way.\* > [@Procrustus](#): > > It’s not Hillary’s fault that people may have sent her things they shouldn’t have. But apparently she’s stupid enough to maintain an Internet-connected machine storing it and not recognize and report it. \*This is Hillary’s big problem. Being stupid generally garners lesser penalties. But it gets interesting when it relates to TS SCI/TK. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/168 "2016-02-02T00:39:04Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > And I’m skeptical that any of it will prove to be otherwise. Here’s the [NY Times reporting](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/politics/22-clinton-emails-deemed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html) that 22 of her emails have been deemed too highly classified to be released even in heavily redacted form, and that a further 18 will not be because the correspondent is Pres. Obama. Do you believe these have been previously made public? ---
**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 2, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/169 "2016-02-02T00:41:03Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > You could not possibly do that. If classified information was contained in a news account (made public), it would no longer be classified. The subsequent investigation would focus on the source (reporter, or news media people) and the People/systems with access to it along the way. I refer you to post 162, just above > [@](#): > > The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times. > > “Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.” [Politico, 1/19/16] ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/170 "2016-02-02T00:43:57Z")
> [@UberArchetype](#): > > I don’t know what it was I said that would invoke the requirement for a cite. 😕 Really? Did you bother reading the thread since you had last posted in it? [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19064821#post19064821) is the claim, [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19065587&postcount=143) is where I first asked you and Martin Hyde for cites, and [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19065806&postcount=146) is where Martin provided one. To be specific, I would like to see you cite that Martin’s claim that mishandling classified information is relatively commonplace, rarely punished, and very rarely punished with more than a slap on the wrist is incorrect. If I’ve misunderstood your point of view, feel free to clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/171 "2016-02-02T00:46:49Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > It’s not Hillary’s fault that people may have sent her things they shouldn’t have. How about things they _were_ supposed to send her, that she was supposed to keep secure? ---
**Author:** ![GloryDays](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9c0ed/32.png) [@GloryDays](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GloryDays)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/172 "2016-02-02T00:55:36Z")
If Clinton loses Iowa tonight again, and loses New Hampshire to a 74-year old white socialist who wants to turn America into a Europeanized form of government and military, and the FBI and the DOJ decides to indict her, then the Democratic Party will be in grave peril. This is the same Sanders that has no clue about foreign affairs, national defense, and the American armed forces. Senator Sanders is a good man. A truly, good man. However, if the Republicans retain control of the Senate in 2016, and the House stays Republican in 2016: how can he get his ideas passed. Do you think a single woman with no children in Birmingham, Ala. wants to pay for a college student’s tuition? C’mon? Do you think a man in Lorain, Ohio, wants to see his Army job cut? > **[Bernie's foreign policy deficit](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431)** > > "I don't know how I got on Bernie Sanders' list," says one expert cited by his campaign. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/173 "2016-02-02T01:07:28Z")
Whole lotta _ifs_ there, huh? ---
**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 2, 2016, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/174 "2016-02-02T01:19:30Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > How about things they _were_ supposed to send her, that she was supposed to keep secure? I’m quite sure that the person sending classified information has a duty to make sure it is being sent properly. If the NSA cc’s the New York Times, that’s on the NSA, not the Times. Remember, Mrs. Clinton is not accused of sending classified information to someone not supposed to get it. The worst she is accused of is _receiving_ stuff someone shouldn’t have sent. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/175 "2016-02-02T01:23:46Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Here’s the [NY Times reporting](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/politics/22-clinton-emails-deemed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html) that 22 of her emails have been deemed too highly classified to be released even in heavily redacted form, and that a further 18 will not be because the correspondent is Pres. Obama. > > Do you believe these have been previously made public? I don’t think any of the supposed classified information will be made public, which will ultimately make this hard to judge. But from that article: [QUOTE=NYT] We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,” Mr. Fallon said. … Officials at the State Department have said the “upgrading” of the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s emails has been routine. Mr. Kirby said Friday that the classification review was “focused on whether they need to be classified today.” [/quote] This still sounds exactly like public information that has been reviewed and deemed classified for BS reasons, and whether or not the emails are ultimately released in redacted form or not at all doesn’t really change my opinion. _Everyone_ has a responsibility to safeguard classified information, meaning if I hand you a folder that’s marked classified, you’re responsible. But NOT everyone is responsible for recognizing when information needs to BECOME classified. If an intel analyst is researching a weapons system and finds a bit of new information, they’ll send it up to a classification authority who will mark it with an appropriate level of classification and an expiration date. This can happen with smaller bits of unclassified information that have been aggregated as well. Intel analysts are trained in this. However, if some dope at the state department pulls together that exact same information for a report that his boss wants, they’re not thinking about it in the same terms. This is part of the problem with over-classification. Intel analysts tend to see everything as potentially classified, while regular grunts outside of the IC would never give a second thought to a bunch of info they pulled together from public sources. Why would it be classified if anyone could get their hands on it!? Well, in the IC community, that’s just a normal day. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/176 "2016-02-02T01:28:26Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I’m quite sure that the person sending classified information has a duty to make sure it is being sent properly. From the point of view of, say, the British Foreign Minister, an email to the US SoS is inherently proper - and indeed common. And (if competent to hold that position) he’d be fully aware of the US laws and procedures that require this be treated as classified, until it’s declared otherwise. > [@](#): > > Mrs. Clinton is not accused of sending classified information to someone not supposed to get it. She is not at this point accused of anything. ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/177 "2016-02-02T01:30:01Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > Really? Did you bother reading the thread since you had last posted in it? [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19064821#post19064821) is the claim, [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19065587&postcount=143) is where I first asked you and Martin Hyde for cites, and [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19065806&postcount=146) is where Martin provided one. > > To be specific, I would like to see you cite that Martin’s claim that mishandling classified information is relatively commonplace, rarely punished, and very rarely punished with more than a slap on the wrist is incorrect. If I’ve misunderstood your point of view, feel free to clarify. Nothing I said requires a cite. You people keep talking about “classified information” like it’s all the same, and only underlines your lack of knowledge about it. It’s like saying crime is all the same. People shoplift all the time and get probation or house arrest. Murderers don’t get off so easy. Someone forgetting to put something in the safe or lock the safe happens all time and people get wrist slaps. Organizing, maintaining unclassified email infrastructure (either knowingly or not) transmitting/receiving and storing SCI is like the Al Capone level of this type crime… ---
**Author:** ![UberArchetype](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/2bfe46/32.png) [@UberArchetype](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UberArchetype)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/178 "2016-02-02T01:36:31Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I refer you to post 162, just above I guess you’re right then since technically, we don’t have a classification for classified nobody cares about anymore. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/179 "2016-02-02T01:39:25Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > From the point of view of, say, the British Foreign Minister, an email to the US SoS is inherently proper - and indeed common. And (if competent to hold that position) he’d be fully aware of the US laws and procedures that require this be treated as classified, until it’s declared otherwise. Then why would he be sending it to her @state.gov email address in the first place? That’s the issue here, right? If it would be bad to send it to [hrc@clinton.org](mailto:hrc@clinton.org), it’s equally bad from his perspective to send it to [hilary.clinton@state.gov](mailto:hilary.clinton@state.gov). They’re both going to be going through unclass networks, i.e. the internet. For that matter, it shouldn’t be _possible_ to simply forward classified information to an unclass email account, because it means the sender would necessarily have to be using an unclass computer themselves. Meaning they’re ipso facto creating a classified message incident. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574/180 "2016-02-02T01:40:23Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > But from that article: Note that the “We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system …” quote came from a Clinton campaign spokesman, not from the NY Times or the State Department. > [@](#): > > But NOT everyone is responsible for recognizing when information needs to BECOME classified. True. But the text of Hillary’s NDA linked above makes it clear that the SoS does have that responsibility. (It would be a very strange thing if the highest-ranking person in a government department that routinely deals with matters of national security did not.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-with-the-hillary-email-scandal/744574.md?page=10)