Doesn’t that mean that only 3 of the emails were marked with classified headers. And those three were marked incorrectly?

To me this seems like she didn’t know there was classified info in the emails. So she thought it was ok to share unclassified info.

This goes back to my only point. It is much worse to purposefully give access to someone who know shouldn’t have it vs. unknowingly give access. If the fbi has found that Clinton knowingly gave access she would have been criminally liable.

Agreed. Accountable in this sense referred to criminal illegality. Where other posters have said that what she did was illegal or if you did what she did you would be in jail.

But that’s not the case. If 6 years of gop controlled congress plus a gop appointed head of the fbi came to that conclusion or didn’t have enough to bring charges, that’s what I am going to go with.

If others are saying otherwise that’s their own feelings on the matter, and they should also find the gop incompetent for not being able to bring enough eveidence to make a clear case against a clear criminal after 6 plus years of investigations.

I appreciate your reluctance to participate in matters of truth and fact conjecture with open source reporting. I am not so reluctant, and can easily jump to the conclusion that this SCI or no SCI access is the critical feature here. Maybe Kushner refused to take a polygraph? maybe he failed the polygraph? Maybe he took and passed the polygraph and the agencies still refused to certify him? How hampered is he not having SCI material knowledge when he sits down with heads of state in negotiations on behalf of our government?

Continuing along this line of truth assumption: In previous posts I presumed that Kushner, in order to perform effectively as the president's envoy in pursuit of middle east affairs and peace between Israel and Palestinians, would need to be read in with certain SCI material at the TS level. Some of the reporting out there is he does not in fact have that SCI access, but rather just only a permanent TS clearance. I know friends who are required routinely to pass polygraph tests to obtain and maintain SCI access. As I am no longer current and have forgotten so much I ask you to clarify polygraph requirements wrt SCI.

I appreciate your reluctance to participate in matters of truth and fact conjecture with open source reporting. I am not so reluctant, and can easily jump to the conclusion that this SCI or no SCI access is the critical feature here. Maybe Kushner refused to take a polygraph? maybe he failed the polygraph? Maybe he took and passed the polygraph and the agencies still refused to certify him? How hampered is he not having SCI material knowledge when he sits down with heads of state in negotiations on behalf of our government?

This story is so salacious it won't go away. The sidebar whataboutism in this thread with the Clinton server and mishandling classified material is indicative. The fact that the ultimate classification authority is the President and he is under investigation and is maybe a compromised national security risk is in play. Can we jump to suspect that state secrets are being purposely withheld from both Kushner and the president?

I have often railed against the system in place that allows for over classification and over restriction to access and systemic reluctance to declassify in a timely manner. But this current mess does give pause and re-emphasizes that long standing security protocols are essential to our nations security.

All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.

.

Polygraphs occur at various points for various reasons, and may or may not be the sticking point for access to information, depending on what you need access to and what job you're going to.

My read of the situation is that Kushner probably was never granted SCI eligibility....

I also can't speak to what information he would absolutely need to have access to in order to accomplish the goals of his talks. It's entirely possible that he might be able to have those talks without access to SCI information. It's not as if he would likely be directly discussing SCI information with the foreign delegations.

That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.

chaparral wrote:

No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924

This is from your first link.

(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

That is pretty clear. She set up a private email server and knowingly transmitted classified material over it. Not sure how that isn't intent.

You should read that again. She did not knowingly send classified over it.

No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924

The espionage act isn't the only law pertaining to handling of classified material, and I didn't say anything about whether someone should be prosecuted. I said that Sec Clinton DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. There's really no question about that statement.

The law requires people with access to classified information to protect that information. It requires them to ensure classified information is not transmitted to unauthorized personnel. It requires them to immediately report the compromise or disclosure of classified information once discovered.

E.O. 13526 states that:

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

(e) Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall ensure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch.

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently: (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

There's plenty of room to argue about whether she should have been prosecuted. However, there is zero room to argue about the fact that she did not follow the law.

EO are laws though, so she didn't break a law.

Really? That's what you plan to hang your hat on?

E.O.s have the force of law. And E.O. 13526 isn't the only "law" that governs the safeguarding of classified material and information.

32 CFR Part 2001

§ 2001.41 Responsibilities of holders.
Authorized persons who have access to classified information are responsible for:
(a) Protecting it from persons without authorized access to that information, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities whenever it is not under the direct control of an authorized person;
(b) Meeting safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency head; and
(c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or data circuits, in public conveyances or places, or in any other manner that permits interception by unauthorized persons.

§ 2001.48 Loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure.
(a)General. Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.

So yes, Clinton may have violate the law...

So yes, Clinton may have violate the law, but she did not violate any criminal law.

I’m just surprised that number isn’t higher. Top of my head though I’d be shocked if Bannon or the mooch would legitimate qualify.

So you are hanging your hat on a "law", even then it is not clear that she violated that EO. Neglicence has a specific legal meaning and it is not clear that Clinton met that standard. Mostly, because there should have been no classified emails at all, classified information is sent on a totally different system, so she when she set up the email server, she never expected classified information to be on it, so it was not negligent. Also, a EO cannot be criminal, unless there is a statute.


Ok, she may have violated 32 CFR Part 2001.41, so that is a law. But it is not criminal law. It is part code of federal regulations and cannot create crimes beyone what congress has already created by statute. So yes, Clinton may have violate the law, but she did not violate any criminal law.

That does not matter. Once she became aware that classified information was being introduced into that unclassified system, she have reported it immediately. The fact that she let it continue is negligent, unless you want to argue that Hillary is so stupid she wasn't aware (nor anyone else reading those emails) that classified information was being discussed. And, as has been been pointed out many times, it absolutely does NOT matter whether or not the information was marked as classified.

She was simultaneously the most qualified presidential candidate ever and too stupid to know she was reading classified information. As I said before the mental gymnastics in politics is crazy.

She is an interesting case. She knew she was going to run for president. Any rational person would be handling the 8 years of Obama ridiculously carefully. You would make sure everything was in the clear. I assume it is arrogance that got her in trouble with things like her email and the foundation because I think she actually is a very intelligent person.

And I never really cared whether what she was doing with her email was technically legal or not. There was no benevolent reason to do it the way she did. I'm pretty certain she wasn't trying to play fast and loose with classified information. I think it was more about intentionally blurring the lines between her private dealings and her official government actions. Keeping those separate seems like such a quaint idea now.

Yes, the argument over whether or not it was legal or not misses the question as to why she did it in the first place. It’s entirely possible that she did to avoid a FOIA request. It’s also possible that she wanted complete control over what anyone could glean from her emails and her actions as SecState vis a vis the Clinton Foundation.