# Will Hillary Clinton be the next U.S. President? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 4, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557 "2015-10-04T23:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**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 10, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/621 "2016-01-10T19:36:37Z")
You do that, **EM**. And I’ll get Lolo Soetoro out of cold storage and thaw his ass out long enough to kick some ass and chew bubblegum. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/622 "2016-01-11T02:30:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve worked in military and government for 15 years, and so far I’ve seen no evidence she did anything illegal. After illegally storing government records on her private email server, preventing any chance of a FOIA request on her emails she then decided to print out some of her emails and destroy the rest. Since her private email server contained government records it ceases to be a private server. She should have returned it to the government when she received her debrief and signed the document stating she had returned all government records in her possession. Well she’s willfully and unlawfully concealed, and removed government records which she had custody over which puts her in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071 a and b which has a penalty of being fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. That’s even if her private server only held unclassified material, which it didn’t. She has over 1000 classified emails on her private email server “well she didn’t know they were classified.” The thing is as the IG report makes clear many emails written by the secretary of state are classified at the moment they were created. Also had she done her business on government systems as the law requires it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad a thing to have classified material on an unclass system because at least it would have been protected by the governments above average security rather than a stupid server in her barn. Gen Petraeus was convicted for having a single classified document. Even if they weren’t classified certainly most unclassified emails were For Official Use Only which means they can only be transmitted on government networks. You see the Government’s networks are a private network which automatically encrypts all emails sent on it. However this encryption cannot protect emails that leave the network because the non-government computers don’t have the same encryption keys so they are sent in the clear. If you still think she’s done nothing wrong please contact your SSO and they will explain to you in detail what she did that you would lose your clearance be fired and possibly go to jail for doing. ---
**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 11, 2016, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/623 "2016-01-11T02:47:07Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > After illegally storing government records on her private email server, Full stop, no one has said it was illegal, it became illegal after Clinton left, before that Colin Powell and others used even less secure personal e-mail. So the rest of your tirade can be also discounted as it is clear that the right wing media is just lying to you. > **[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... ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/624 "2016-01-11T04:45:11Z")
Not illegal, but definitely an attempt to evade FOIA, and why did the State Dept. feel the need to hide the fact that she used private email from FOIA requesters? Odd, that. BTW, isn’t lying to deflect an FOIA request a federal crime? WAs Clinton’s signature on that document in question? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/625 "2016-01-11T04:55:39Z")
And now she’s having to answer questions again from the media about this: > **[Hillary on Instructing Staffer to Delete Classified Heading: This Is ‘Common...](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/hillary-instructing-staffer-delete-classified-heading-common-practice/)** > > Hillary Clinton defended a 2011 e-mail instructing her staffer at the State Department to remove a document’s classified marking and send it over an unsecured line. Doesn’t the media know that since she gave a great performance that the issue is now behind her? Respect the performance! ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/626 "2016-01-11T05:41:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Full stop, no one has said it was illegal, it became illegal after Clinton left, before that Colin Powell and others used even less secure personal e-mail. > > So the rest of your tirade can be also discounted as it is clear that the right wing media is just lying to you. > > [http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/21/a-comprehensive-guide-to-myths-and-facts-about/206289](http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/21/a-comprehensive-guide-to-myths-and-facts-about/206289) It became illegal when she failed to turn in those documents when she left office. Then when she destroyed those documents and concealed the documents. Also there is the matter of the secret and top secret material which she caused to be stored on there by not having an official email. You want to go after Colin Powell? Fine go ahead. If he violated the law like she did he deserves to be prosecuted like she should and Petraeus was. Honestly I’ve never understood the argument that someone else was bad so you can’t say anything when our girl does something bad. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/627 "2016-01-11T05:42:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not illegal, but definitely an attempt to evade FOIA, and why did the State Dept. feel the need to hide the fact that she used private email from FOIA requesters? Odd, that. > > BTW, isn’t lying to deflect an FOIA request a federal crime? WAs Clinton’s signature on that document in question? If the document you mean is her debriefing document then there is no one with the authority to allow her to not sign it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/628 "2016-01-11T06:05:52Z")
No, I mean the document that the State Dept has no admitted was inaccurate: > [@](#): > > Two years before the public learned of Hillary Clinton’s private server, the State Department gave an “inaccurate and incomplete” response about her email use when it told an outside group that it had no documents about Clinton’s email accounts beyond her government address, according to a report from the State Department’s inspector general to be released Thursday. > **[Report: State Department gave ‘inaccurate and incomplete’ answer on Clinton's...](https://www.businessinsider.com/state-department-gave-inaccurate-answer-on-clinton-email-use-2016-1?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=referral)** > > A new report claims that the State Department misrepresented the knowledge it had of Clinton's email use. I’d be interested in knowing whose signature was on that response. If it’s someone who knew, then they knowingly perjured themselves. ---
**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 11, 2016, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/629 "2016-01-11T06:51:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And now she’s having to answer questions again from the media about this: > > [Hillary on Instructing Staffer to Delete Classified Heading: This Is 'Common Practice' | National Review](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429520/hillary-instructing-staffer-delete-classified-heading-common-practice) > > Doesn’t the media know that since she gave a great performance that the issue is now behind her? Respect the performance! I think this is the same email discussed elsewhere, the National Review is smoking something because even the ones investigating are not going after Clinton. AFAIK there is no evidence that the one that got the message was Clinton. ---
**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 11, 2016, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/630 "2016-01-11T06:53:14Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > It became illegal when she failed to turn in those documents when she left office. Then when she destroyed those documents and concealed the documents. Nope, if that was the case the FBI would be targeting Clinton and would already had indicted her. Once again you are only relying on trash from right wing sources. ---
**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 11, 2016, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/631 "2016-01-11T06:58:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, I mean the document that the State Dept has no admitted was inaccurate: > > [State Department Gave ‘Inaccurate’ Answer on Clinton Email Use - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/state-department-gave-inaccurate-answer-on-clinton-email-use-2016-1?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=referral) > > I’d be interested in knowing whose signature was on that response. If it’s someone who knew, then they knowingly perjured themselves. > [@](#): > > Pointing to the report’s broad conclusions about weak records management, State Department officials concurred with the inspector general’s findings and recommendations to boost staff, training, procedures and oversight. I only see the media inflating a bureaucratic turf fight that in the end will only lead to better procedures, but no indictments. ---
**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 11, 2016, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/632 "2016-01-11T07:12:02Z")
I think I can identify were the misleading info is coming from: > **[State Department Disproves Hugh Hewitt's Claim That Hillary Clinton Broke A Law](https://www.mediamatters.org/abc/state-department-disproves-hugh-hewitts-claim-hillary-clinton-broke-law)** > > Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt dubiously claimed that a newly released email shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broke a "statute \[that\] prohibits misuse of classified information" because she allegedly "directed... > [@](#): > > Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt dubiously claimed that a newly released email shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broke a “statute [that] prohibits misuse of classified information” because she allegedly “directed [an aide] to alter and send [a document] over a non-secure system.” Yet, according to a State Department review, officials “found no indication the document in question was sent to Secretary Clinton using nonsecure fax or email.” > [@](#): > > On January 9, the Associated Press reported that the State Department “checked its records and found no indication that the document in question was sent to Secretary Clinton using nonsecure fax or email,” and “instead turned up a secure fax transmission shortly after Clinton’s email exchange”: > > ``` > The State Department provided more detail Saturday about a 2011 document at the center of Hillary Clinton's latest email controversy, as an official said the former secretary of state never received the paper by nonsecure fax. But many other questions remained unanswered. > > Clinton, whose presidential campaign has been challenged by her use of a private email account while secretary of state, is facing questions anew after Friday'srevelation that she asked an adviser to go around a secure fax system to transmit a set of "talking points" on an unspecified subject. > > Clinton told the adviser to turn it "into nonpaper w/no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Republicans immediately pounced on the exchange and suggested it proved impropriety. > > The State Department said Friday that no such document was sent by email. > > And on Saturday, a State Department official who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the increasingly complicated review of Clinton's emails said the agency "checked its records and found no indication that the document in question was sent to Secretary Clinton using nonsecure fax or email." > > The official, who demanded anonymity, said records instead turned up a secure fax transmission shortly after Clinton's email exchange with adviser Jake Sullivan on June 17, 2011. The implication was that this was the same document. [Associated Press, 1/9/16] > > ``` > > Politico: “Officials See No Indication The Document Was Ever Sent To The Email Account Clinton Used.” In a January 8 article, Politico cited State Department spokesman John Kirby stating that the State Department has “found no indication that the document was emailed to former Secretary Clinton”: > > ``` > The FBI has been investigating whether Clinton's homemade email ever put classified information at risk, and Republicans on the Hill have also been probing the matter. A key question they've asked is whether someone instructed aides to send classified information over unsecured accounts, which can be illegal. > > The campaign in a statement Friday said Clinton would do no such thing. > > "It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement. > > And State Department spokesman John Kirby said officials see no indication the document was ever sent to the email account Clinton used, which was hosted on a private server. > > "We did do some forensics on that and found no evidence it was actually emailed to her," Kirby said at a daily news briefing on Friday. "We have found no indication that the document was emailed to former Secretary Clinton. There are other ways it could have found its way to her for her use." > > Kirby also said the fact that the talking points were initially set to be sent via a secure system did not necessarily mean they were classified. > > "Just because something, a document, is on a classified system doesn't necessarily make the document, the content, necessarily classified," he added. He would not say if the document was classified. [Politico, 1/8/16] > > ``` And so, once again, we can see the right wing ignoring what does happen when their predictions are not based in good information… Well, yes, I know; after many encounters with misleading information I have found out that many right wingers will never wonder if they should demand better from their sources. But like in the past many do realize how irresponsible the Republicans are on how they prosecute their targets (making them look better in the process) and it is a good reminder for all that Republicans should not be trusted with positions of power indeed. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/633 "2016-01-11T07:36:08Z")
Clinton herself addressed that issue and said it was “standard practice”. Given all the BS she encountered as Secretary of State, I wonder if any of her myriad plans include reforming the department she knows most about? ---
**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 11, 2016, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/634 "2016-01-11T07:40:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Clinton herself addressed that issue and said it was “standard practice”. Given all the BS she encountered as Secretary of State, I wonder if any of her myriad plans include reforming the department she knows most about? Looking at the evidence it is clear that the reforms will be applied, Clinton or no Clinton, one should not forget that if Clinton does not follow with reform the Republicans and media will be there. That is if we can get the Republicans and the media to not overblown what is taking place. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/635 "2016-01-11T07:49:43Z")
There will be no reform. Overclassification and getting around rules and regulations is just the way government works. ---
**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 11, 2016, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/636 "2016-01-11T08:12:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There will be no reform. Overclassification and getting around rules and regulations is just the way government works. Not even this is accurate, the idea of using personal email accounts is clearly out already. Sure, they will find ways around the limits, but it defies reason to expect that with all the scrutiny around people like Clinton that she will be allowed to continue with what now it is not considered to be a good idea. Unless, as Kevin McCarthy pointed out it becomes more clear that a lot of what has been coming from the right is just political trash talk that should not had been looked as important as it is more clear that this is more related to bureaucratic procedure and the need for clearer rules. IMHO one of the rules many Republicans forget when talking about this issue is the rules about Ex post facto laws that are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. Somehow many Republicans do think that regarding the email issue that that inconvenient piece of paper can be ignored in this case. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/637 "2016-01-11T08:20:09Z")
The use of a private account was not illegal. It was, however, an attempt to evade FOIA, which has political consequences. ---
**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 11, 2016, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/638 "2016-01-11T08:37:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The use of a private account was not illegal. It was, however, an attempt to evade FOIA, which has political consequences. As that is surrounded by a coating of Republican exaggerations and overreach the political consequences already are noticeable, Kevin McCarty told the truth about the political nature of the effort and Clinton then went up in the polls after October among Democrats, going later over 50%. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/639 "2016-01-11T08:46:59Z")
her current approval is 42% and against Ted Cruz, not even the most electable Republican, she’s polling at only 44.5%: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general\_election\_cruz\_vs\_clinton-4034.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html) ---
**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 11, 2016, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/640 "2016-01-11T08:57:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > her current approval is 42% and against Ted Cruz, not even the most electable Republican, she’s polling at only 44.5%: > > [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general\_election\_cruz\_vs\_clinton-4034.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html) Sure, like if the talk of free fall is non existent, point is that on predictions about Clinton you get it wrong. In any case the polls are essentially tied with Cruz, (I have noticed that FOX is usually the pollster that is giving so large an advantage to the Republicans that the aggregate number for the polls is being skewed. I’m beginning to suspect that they are not only wrong but putting the finger in the balance) and the really bad things about Cruz have not been mentioned much as he is still not a front runner in the Republican polls. [QUOTE] Senator Ted Cruz raised more than a few eyebrows when he said the U.S. Senate could use "a hundred more like Jesse Helms" because Helms was known for harboring some pretty racist views. Rachel Maddow took the opportunity to remind viewers of those views to show exactly how crazy Cruz's comments really were. Maddow briefly went through the history of African-Americans serving in the U.S. Senate, and recounted the story of how black senator Carol Moseley-Braun was taunted by Helms once in a Senate elevator when he was singing “Dixie,” just to try and make her cry. Maddow continued showing viewers exactly just how much Helms exploited racial division in his political career, even to the point where he opposed integration. Which then led, of course, to Maddow showing the clip of Ted Cruz. Maddow could barely contain how unbelievably stunned and just a little pissed off she was at Cruz suggesting that the Senate could use a hundred more people like a man who was whistling Dixie just to make his black colleague cry. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557.md?page=33)