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.
well it all depends which agency, what rule was broken, and if knowingly- and for what purpose as in spying- sharing with the enemy etc. First we start with a letter in your file- 2nd offence if caught again- then maybe you get 2 weeks suspension of using the internet- furlough and a possible fine-- and so forth -- unless again it was to aide a terrorist group etc.
Baloney. At her level it means automatic loss of your security clearance. That would make her ineligible to be president. You can't do the job if you can't see the intel.
Baloney. At her level it means automatic loss of your security clearance. That would make her ineligible to be president. You can't do the job if you can't see the intel.
No -- check the rules -- and for the record- one she is NOT DOD and2nd she has not been officially charged with anything
Treason? No. There is a specific clause about improper use of server for classified info. I have to find that again. Possibly that but definitely not treason
Should Colin Powell be charged with treason because he used AOL? Of course not. What they did is not treason. Treason is purposely betraying your country. Is he or she had deliberately sent classified information to the Chinese, like Snowden did, then it would be a different story.
I agree that charging Clinton with treason is a bit of a stretch. I think we also need to acknowledge that the "rules" of the issue at hand changed after Powell left the post, and before Hillary started as Secretary of State.
Speaking as a person without knowing the legalities of the issue, I would think a person in such a high position as Secretary of State, would be held to a fairly high standard of conduct in regard to keeping secret communications secret.
A person in such high position should certainly either have the knowledge to know how to keep written electronic communications truly private, or at least have enough brains to realize you need to hire someone with such knowledge to direct him/her as to how to keep things properly secure. I myself certainly understand that typical email is NOT a secure way to transmit confidential information.
Kind of scary to know that some of our national secrets were emailed via a privately owned unsecured email server!
Absolutely yes. I held a Secret Clearance for years. Anyone around any kind of security information knows without being told how to handle said information. The fact that she apparently didn't know or didn't care proves she's dumber than a rock and belongs in prison. They used to hang people for her crime.
You know, it's interesting. You say yes, she should be charged with treason. Then you give an explanation that does nothing to explain HOW what she did was treason. It's almost like you don't know what you're talking about, but chose to offer your opinion anyway.
Absolutely yes. I held a Secret Clearance for years. Anyone around any kind of security information knows without being told how to handle said information. The fact that she apparently didn't know or didn't care proves she's dumber than a rock and belongs in prison. They used to hang people for her crime.
Enforcement of Department security rules is under the authority of the Department Secretary. In fact, the rules themselves are under the authority of the Department Secretary. In fact, the Department Secretary is the Original Classification Authority for all information in his or her Department.
Department Secretaries are co-equal in all these aspects--no document gives any Department Secretary authority over any other.
When I was in military intelligence, it was not uncommon for the DoD to decompartment and lower the classification of CIA information that we wanted to give to combat operators. It was not uncommon for the State Department to decompartment and even declassify DoD and CIA information they wanted to share with their diplomatic contacts. Generally speaking, Departments respect the classifications of documents created by other Departments...but every Department will do it when the operational need of that Department requires it.
Clinton misused the hell out of that gray area, but no Cabinet Department wants it clarified by a court.
But as with Al Capone, it won't be the seemingly big thing that is the downfall of the kingpin. In Clinton's case, failure to turn those emails back to the government in compliance with FOIA may be the equivalent of convicting Capone on tax evasion.
No -- check the rules -- and for the record- one she is NOT DOD and2nd she has not been officially charged with anything
You don't have to be, in your goofy words, officially charged. What the hell! Get a clue!
If your boss even remotely suspects you of something, anything, he has the right to fire your butt. We, the People are firing that hideous Hillary. She doesn't belong anywhere near America!
Hmm. If she is guilty, what about Condoleeza Rice. She admittedly did the same thing, oh but she is a Republcan, so it is different.
It is different because she had an unsecure server. Condoleeza had no such personal server.
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.
