Humanities desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 10

How is it possible that a Secretary of State would never encounter classified material while on the job?

I have a question about the Hillary Clinton email issue. I have followed it only peripherally (and not in full detail). So, I am missing some key information. She was Secretary of State for 4 or 5 years (2009 until 2013). During her entire tenure, she exclusively used this "off site" email system. And, using that email system, she says she never once sent or received classified, or confidential, or top-secret information/emails. So, is it her claim that never once -- in the job of Secretary of State -- for 4 or 5 years -- did she ever encounter classified or secret information? I don't see how that's possible? Isn't that essentially the very job description of a Secretary of State (to handle classified and top secret issues)? How can one go an entire tenure in that job and never once have any official job function that handled sensitive information/emails? It's like being the Attorney General for 4-5 years and claiming that never once during your job as the AG did you ever read a single legal brief or a legal case in that 4-5 years. I don't get it. Or am I misunderstanding some key elements here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure she exclusively used it ? I hadn't heard that part. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure. Wasn't that the whole point? She said: "It's for convenience. I only want to have one device and not drag around 2 or 3 different devices". I thought so? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications" ([1]). -- BenRG (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Who authored that article? Clinton herself? Extremely biased article. Extremely biased "facts". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, LOL. In one conversation Joseph A. Spadaro quotes HRC when it suits his argument, and rejects an HRC report when it does not suit his argument. As you say: extremely biased. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is my "argument" exactly? I asked about facts. Re-read my original post. Yes, I quoted Hillary. That was the basis of my understanding. And that website has "facts" clearly spun by pro-Hillary people. So what's your point? And again, what is my "argument"? And, yeah, LOL, also. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect you to believe everything published by hillaryclinton.com, but you should believe that statement, because it's a claim whose truth/falsity would be well known to a large number of people, many of whom would be eager to damage Clinton by pointing out that it was false, if it was. A similar statement from one of Clinton's enemies would be no better as a source, since the argument for its trustworthiness would be the same: they would gain nothing by lying about it. -- BenRG (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, as I think many participants in this discussion already know and was mentioned another time Joseph A. Spadaro asked a similar question and also sort of mentioned in at least one of Jayron32's sources below or [2] [3], classified emails are not supposed to be sent via normal email period. It doesn't matter whether the email is a .gov one or something else.

JAS can debate given that practically there ends up being some crossover even though it's not supposed to happen, whether it's worse to use a private server, or any other such issues somewhere outside wikipedia if they desire. But as I said before the last time JAS asked, the simple answer is that the likelihood is supposed to be 100% that a Secretary of State never sends or receives a classified email. I.E. Although part of their job is dealing with classified stuff, another part of her job is never sending (and doing her best to ensure people never send) this classified stuff over normal email period. Doesn't matter who the server belongs to.

P.S. From statements, it appears Clinton made little or no direct use of the classified messaging system instead relying on aides and paper copies, face to face communication, video conferencing, tele conferencing, diplomatic cable etc. She apparently isn't the only person (Secretary of State or otherwise) who found it cumbersome to use the classified messasing system. Whether or not what she did do was right or wrong or good or bad (in whatever sense) is of course an issue which the RD doesn't deal with.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reply. You went on and on. But did not answer the question that I asked. You answered a completely different question. And then you claimed that the question that you chose to answer (which was completely different than the question that I actually asked) was an inappropriate question for the Help Desk. Why would you do that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Nil but I think I can explain. You asked, in part: "How can one go an entire tenure in that job and never once have any official job function that handled sensitive information/emails?". Nil Einne replied, in part: "From statements, it appears Clinton made little or no direct use of the classified messaging system instead relying on aides and paper copies, face to face communication, video conferencing, tele conferencing, diplomatic cable etc." Thus, the answer proposed is that it's not the case that Clinton never encountered or dealt with classified stuff. Rather, when she did deal with classified stuff, she avoided a cumbersome official electronic system for classified info and instead used other methods for dealing with classified info, like paper. The last sentence of Nil's I assume was to head off any unnecessary and problematic discussion on that topic. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A ha. I see the distinction. Makes sense (somewhat). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[4], [5], [6], [7]. --Jayron 32 18:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]