Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A president should be charged. With today's politics is everything climate, then they might not be.
Can a person who mishandled classified information in the past get a security clearance? No.
Will Hillary? None of the people you mentioned are supposed to be above the law.
The reason those people would not be charges is because the relevant regulations are under their authority.
For instance, because the president is the senior Original Classification Authority, whatever he releases is automatically declassified by the fact of his release (which results in mad activity by intelligence agencies to reclassify their documents in accordance to what the president has revealed).
As the law and pertinent executive order are written, a Department Secretary arguably has the authority to do what Clinton did (as inarguably irresponsible as it was), and "arguably" means "don't bother trying to prosecute it."
It's like a sole proprietor taking money out of his own cash register...it's simply not prosecutable as theft.
I mean, I can certainly understand the people who are like "I cannot stand Trump, so I will vote for the beast", but the people who are gleeful at the prospect of this criminal being POTUS is astonishing.
I would assume that they don't know that is classified because there are no markings that specify it's classified. If would assume the email server has a filter that is looking for specific classified markings,and automatically reject emails from the server if such classified markings exist. This would be for receiving classified info on the server.
As far as sending the info, if it was never marked when it came in and if there is no knowledge that it's classified, then there could be a mistake if it's sent out.
That is not at all how things work. Anyone who has ever held a clearance is told repeatedly that material doesn't become magically unclassified if the markings are removed.
Classified information should never be hosted on an insecure server connected to the Internet. Michael Hayden, former director of both the NSA and CIA had this to say about her emails: "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."
The issue is that the FBI played the "intent" card.
It is true in the classified world; it is all about intent. People do not get in trouble when they expose classified information unintentionally, as so long they correctly abide by reporting requirements. This rule is in place so exposure will be uncovered and addressed quickly to mitigate any damages.
However, I do not believe she is innocent of this intent. Her constant actions of hiding and using delay tactics demonstrate to me that she did not abide by a critical part of the intent, which is reporting. Also, there is no way she could have played off in her position that she unexpectedly would receive classified information, it is like saying a cook does not expect to get food on his hands; her position essentially revolves around classified information from numerous sources. Additionally, she was not in compliance with records management rules, something I did not see addressed.
The FBI clearly stated she did in fact break the laws, but not the a level criminal due to the lack of intent. But she did in fact have classified email on her private servers.
The reason those people would not be charges is because the relevant regulations are under their authority.
For instance, because the president is the senior Original Classification Authority, whatever he releases is automatically declassified by the fact of his release (which results in mad activity by intelligence agencies to reclassify their documents in accordance to what the president has revealed).
As the law and pertinent executive order are written, a Department Secretary arguably has the authority to do what Clinton did (as inarguably irresponsible as it was), and "arguably" means "don't bother trying to prosecute it."
It's like a sole proprietor taking money out of his own cash register...it's simply not prosecutable as theft.
That is a pretty fair explanation.
She should still be precluded from EVER holding another clearance.
The reason those people would not be charges is because the relevant regulations are under their authority.
For instance, because the president is the senior Original Classification Authority, whatever he releases is automatically declassified by the fact of his release (which results in mad activity by intelligence agencies to reclassify their documents in accordance to what the president has revealed).
As the law and pertinent executive order are written, a Department Secretary arguably has the authority to do what Clinton did (as inarguably irresponsible as it was), and "arguably" means "don't bother trying to prosecute it."
It's like a sole proprietor taking money out of his own cash register...it's simply not prosecutable as theft.
None of this is true. None of them are above the law simply because they are suppose to be responsible for the law. The president does not own the law.
Disgusting. The system is totally corrupt. :insert barfing smiley face here:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FBI Certified liar endorsed for president.
