(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: You read it, because that's not at all what it says. It only says that she can't disclose any classified information without authorization. She's never been found to have done this that I'm aware of.
Placing classified information on a non-secure server, or transmitting it over an unencrypted communication medium, constitutes disclosing it. If that is done without authorization, then she has violated the law.
By the way, there's a big difference between what has been reported so far regarding Colin Powell and the Condoleeza Rice staff members. What has been said is that they sent the information to personal e-mail accounts. That is different from physically placing the information on non-secure servers or transmitting the information over non-secure media. To be clear, I'm not saying that they didn't do those things, that's simply not what has been reported. And if they did not do those things, then the use of a personal email account is NOT equivalent to what Hillary did.
Quote:Then, she signed a second NDA for other classified information. That one only speaks to negligent handling of classified information, but it goes on to say that she is responsible for determining if the information was classified. None of this information so far was found to have a classified stamp on it. So she gets to determine whether it's classified. And sorry Owl #'s but she has a double-secret gold lined security clearance just like you claim to have had and she determined the stuff was not classified at that time.
She does not have the legal right to make such a determination.
Quote:This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.
I don't know anyone who subscribes to that notion. I certainly don't, in fact, just the opposite. The person who initiates the information establishes the classification. If someone down the line believes that it should be declassified, that person down the line must go back to the originator and resolve the issue with him/her. I would anticipate that as Secretary of State, Hillary saw a lot of information that was classified not because of content but because release of the information could expose the identity of an intelligence operative. There is no way that Hillary, getting the information down the line, would have any knowledge that would permit her to make an assessment of that likelihood. Let's say hypothetically that someone files a report that Assad is in a bad mood because his rose garden isn't doing very well. The fact that the roses aren't blooming obviously does not require classification. But that message obviously came from someone who has been in Assad's rose garden, and if that information is released then Assad has a short list of people who have been in his rose garden to investigate as possible spies, and kill the ones that may be spies. That's why you have to go back to the originator to change classification.
Bottom line, you've obviously never worked with information that has been classified for national security purposes, and you obviously have not clue how the system works. You're just making yourself look stupid.
Look, I want Hillary to stay afloat long enough to head off Bernie. Electing Bernie would be the worst possible thing we could do, except maybe electing Liz "Pocahontas" Warren.