# HRC and the ethics thing. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 5, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971 "2016-03-05T01:05:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/61 "2016-03-13T03:05:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Classification can be more art than science. There are probably news articles in the Washington Post and NY Times every week that contain classified information – emailing those articles could technically be emailing classified info. There are numerous other intricacies that can result in reasonable behavior that could be technical violations, but would never warrant prosecution. > > In my career in active duty and civilian work for the Navy, I’ve known dozens of people who have gotten in trouble for mishandling controlled information. None of these cases resulted in prosecution, and the vast majority resulted in a temporary loss of access to controlled information, and a retraining program. It is an incredibly common occurrence. When people say that “regular” folks would go to jail for mishandling classified information, they’re full of shit. In general, only criminal intent leads to prosecution for mishandling classified information. Boneheaded moves just result in retraining, for the most part. You’re absolutely right, but I was limiting my argument to her insulting talking point. Which itself was an evolution from her original talking point that no classified information passed through her server. Now she says nothing was “marked classified” which is irrelevant. She should be called out on that at least. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/62 "2016-03-13T20:52:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Classification can be more art than science. There are probably news articles in the Washington Post and NY Times every week that contain classified information – emailing those articles could technically be emailing classified info. There are numerous other intricacies that can result in reasonable behavior that could be technical violations, but would never warrant prosecution. The NYT is far less culpable for printing classified information because it isn’t a cleared person or organization. If someone drops a page out of a classified document on a sidewalk, some random person who picks it up has no obligation to protect it. > [@](#): > > In my career in active duty and civilian work for the Navy, I’ve known dozens of people who have gotten in trouble for mishandling controlled information. None of these cases resulted in prosecution, and the vast majority resulted in a temporary loss of access to controlled information, and a retraining program. It is an incredibly common occurrence. When people say that “regular” folks would go to jail for mishandling classified information, they’re full of shit. In general, only criminal intent leads to prosecution for mishandling classified information. Boneheaded moves just result in retraining, for the most part. Unless the reporting on Clinton is completely inaccurate, it’s hard to see how she can brush this off as a minor goof. This is like someone emailing classified data to his gmail account to work on at home, repeatedly over a period of years. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/63 "2016-03-14T03:09:07Z")
> [@crypto](#): > > … > If we ever get a chance to see what is actually in those emails, she might be in line for real prison time. And she should be held accountable just like anyone else. > … Speak for yourself; I certainly am not in a position to decide if someone should be prosecuted, the terms of a putative plea agreement, or even eligible to sit on a jury in any district in which she might be tried. That has got to be the silliest thing anyone has ever said on the subject; not only do most if not all of us lack any legal authority it this matter, if the content of the emails could result in prosecution _ **we would never get a change to see them.** _ If we ever get a chance to see what is in those emails, it will only be because they are completely innocuous. > [@Hyperelastic](#): > > … This is like someone emailing classified data to his gmail account to work on at home, repeatedly over a period of years. Can you describe the similarities? None of the accusations I have read have many specifics. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/64 "2016-03-14T13:50:12Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > The NYT is far less culpable for printing classified information because it isn’t a cleared person or organization. If someone drops a page out of a classified document on a sidewalk, some random person who picks it up has no obligation to protect it. Right – and if these NYT articles happened to be emailed by someone with a security clearance out of ignorance, I seriously doubt that the DoD would consider any punishment more severe then extra training. > [@](#): > > Unless the reporting on Clinton is completely inaccurate, it’s hard to see how she can brush this off as a minor goof. This is like someone emailing classified data to his gmail account to work on at home, repeatedly over a period of years. Based on my reading, including on the practices of previous Secretaries of State, I disagree. While practices and rules for everyday folks with security clearances seem pretty clear-cut, this seems far from the case for Secretaries of State, who seemed to set their own policies and practices regarding transmittal of information. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971.md?page=3)