- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Mishandling classified information, alone, is a crime.
Ok, fine...she broke the law. :roll: What exactly should be her punishment for:
1) having access to classified information.
2) for having classified information on her private email server.
3) for sending and receiving classified information (marked or unmarked; and I'm going to assume that she was well aware of the level of information she sent since to date we still don't have confirmation that she ever sent classified information to unauthorized personnel or that there was a successful breach to her server).
(Notice that all three of the above would have been in the normal day-to-day performance of her job as Secretary of State.)
Did she receive authorization outside of the State Department to have her own private server? No.
Did she turn over all work-related (official) documents to the proper authorities prior to leaving office? No
Did she follow established IT/records management protocols? No
Is any of this criminal?
Did any classified information remain in her possession?
Did any classified information fall into enemy hands?
Those would be the criminal actions. So, when that FBI report discovers that her skirting the rules allowed classified information to fall into enemy hands, let me know. Until then, we're done with this discussion.
Mishandling classified information, alone, is a crime.
But there's no proof that any such thing occurred.
When it comes to routing classified documents, there's a chain of receipts in place. Each document is numbered according to their classification. Each time the document is routed from one person/department to the next, there's a record of who has it. To that, just because classified information was found on her server (i.e., details from classified sources, i.e., the name of a classified operation or troop levels, etc.) DOES NOT mean that such information was mishandled.
Again, in this case you'd have to prove that any classified emails fell into enemy hands OR that she failed to turn over all classified material which came into her possession (other than those emails found on her server which apparently didn't not contain classified markings. I'm mostly referring to hard copy documents here, however.). Since neither has been shown to be fact, I'd say you're (still) grasping at straws here.
Let it go...at least until the FBI has completed (or even started) their investigation. If they find that she committed a gross violation of the law where "mishandling of classified information" is concerned, then I'm on that bandwagon. Until then...
:coffeepap....:2wave:
The IG says it occured. That's damming evidence.
See my post #234...
(Of course, you could always read the report yourself and find all your answers there just as well.)
Violating an email policy is hardly equivalent to feeding state secrets outside the government.
Cabinet Officers don't appoint IG's.Andrew Napolitano claims that during Hillary's tenure as SecState she never appointed an IG.
Now it's easy to understand why. She's a crook.
But there's no proof that any such thing occurred.
When it comes to routing classified documents, there's a chain of receipts in place. Each document is numbered according to their classification. Each time the document is routed from one person/department to the next, there's a record of who has it.
Let it go...at least until the FBI has completed (or even started) their investigation.
I read the report, and it says she was told not to do it, she was not given authorization to do it, she was offered govt means to conduct her business, and yet she insisted on using her own. Why do you think that was?
Using a private server is the very definition of "outside the govt".
What a meaningless equivocation.
No, i was speaking to feeding secrets to people. Do you realize that there should not have been any classified information on her email anyway ?
No, it's not equivocation. Her server was not in govt....it was outside govt.
Yes, there should not have been classified email, or anything else, on her personal server. Reportedly, that's why the FBI is investigating her.
Cabinet Officers don't appoint IG's.
The Acting IG in office during her term had been appointed by GW Bush in early 2008 - after his appointed IG stepped down amidst fraud charges.I'll take your word for that.
I guess the stars were just aligned perfectly for there to be no IG during Clinton's time of service. Pure magic, eh?
The Acting IG in office during her term had been appointed by GW Bush in early 2008 - after his appointed IG stepped down amidst fraud charges.
That you say in your conclusion that "...really nothing can be done..." is simply untrue, and is as laughable as the FBI conducting a "security audit"Not quite.
There's nothing illegal about her having access to classified material in the performance of her duties as Secretary of State. The "mishandling" part at this point is sketchy because despite the five or so Congressional hearings on this subject, there hasn't been any concrete evidence proving that she improperly handled any classified material. In this case, "mishandling" could mean anything from not following a specified chain of receipts per protocol or sending classified documents to the wrong personal who wasn't suppose to get them or allowing classified material to fall into the wrong hands.
If any of these things prove to be true, then the Justice Department should hold her accountable. If not (and again, there have been a number of hearings to bore out these things), there's really nothing that can be done since most of her "blunders" seem to fall under "administrative" mismanagement and not criminal behavior.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?