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.
Why do you IGNORE ALL CLASSIFIED MATERIAL SHE RECEIVED FROM OTHER AGENCIES?
Your type is ALWAYS full of half of the story.
Clinton certainly received thousands upon thousands of classified documents. I would expect the vast majority of communications she received were classified. She worked in a SCIF after all. There is no question that all those documents were handled through classified systems.
The issue is a small number of documents handled on her private server not the vast number handled through normal secure channels. The people sending her those documents would have been friends on the outside and close staff.
If you HAD you WOULD know that what you proclaim, "but there is nothing by which to prosecute a Department secretary who chooses to change the classification of material that enters his Department from another."
"Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
I held a TS/SCI clearance (with multiple compartments) from 1973 to 2000. From the latter 80s to the early 90s I was on the DoD J2 staff in the Pentagon.
Again, look for the enforcement clauses. There is no enforcement clause for any department secretary valid against any other department secretary.
I saw it happen. When the SECDEF decided he needed to de-compartment CIA information to fight a war, he did it, and let the CIA just sputter about it. When the SECSTATE decided he needed to declassify Defense information to seal a political deal, he did it, and let the SECDEF just sputter about it.
The difference here is that it has not happened for reasons to preserve national security (even of they were arguable between departments), but it has happened as a result of extremely stupid high-level decisions made in sheer contempt of national security.
But there is still no inter-department enforcement provision in the Executive Order. Each department secretary is responsible for enforcing security within his department, and that's as far as it goes.
Prosecutors make decisions every day on who they're going to charge and who they're not going to charge. When have you ever before heard a defendant succeed in court on that basis, even when it's the same prosecutor? Do you really think that if prosecutor A fails to charge a crime it means no other prosecutor anywhere else should ever be able to charge that crime?
Prosecutors make decisions every day on who they're going to charge and who they're not going to charge. When have you ever before heard a defendant succeed in court on that basis, even when it's the same prosecutor? Do you really think that if prosecutor A fails to charge a crime it means no other prosecutor anywhere else should ever be able to charge that crime?
Yes. The law should be carried out fairly across the board.
Yes. The law should be carried out fairly across the board.
Fair and equal are not the same thing.
What if Prosecutor A failed to charge because there wasn't an applicable law and sufficient evidence for him to use in that particular situation, but an applicable law and sufficient evidence was available for Prosecutor B?
In the military, btw, it happens daily. A commander has the authority to decide whether to turn Private Johnson over to court-martial for a crime and the next day decide to discipline Private Smith himself...for the same crime.
What if Prosecutor A failed to charge because there wasn't an applicable law and sufficient evidence for him to use in that particular situation, but an applicable law and sufficient evidence was available for Prosecutor B?
Two entirely different things are not what we are discussing.
Two entirely different things are not what we are discussing.
But we are discussing two different applicable laws and two difference sets of evidence.
Prosecution under the Espionage Act requires proving an intent to transfer classified information to a particular unauthorized party. Sorry, that's the law and that particular point has been emphasized by the Supreme Court. That was the point Comey said was unprovable in Clinton's case.
In the case of this sailor, "intent to transfer" was conclusively provable. And yet, the sailor would probably have escaped an incarceration sentence if not for the equally provable intent to obstruct a federal investigation charge.
Clinton was wrong to use a private server for government business. Powell was wrong to use an AOL address for government business.
Neither is acceptable but trying to compare the two is ridiculous.
Powell:
2 emails that were received by him that were "up-classified"
Obscure private email account that at best would be exposed to the techs at AOL.
Clinton:
110 emails in 52 email chains that were classified at the time they were sent and received.
8 email chains with TOP SECRET/SAP information.
2,000 Emails "up-classified".
Public server exposed to the entire world that has likely been compromised.
Data exposed to techs at two data centers and possibly more.
14,900 work related emails deleted and never turned over to state.
Unknown amount of work related emails not recovered.
Use of a Blackberry in hostile foreign countries.
The FBI said that someone else that does the same thing as Hillary did should not assume to be able to get away with it as Hillary did.
At least not anyone else who isn't a department secretary.
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.
