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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you describe the similarities? None of the accusations I have read have many specifics.
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.
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.