It depends on the content of the talking points. If they were classified, then yes, that’s bad, but if not, then it’s nothing. In my office, we routinely make determinations on whether something requires classification or other control markings (based on the content and source), and often people “play it safe” and mark it classified when it doesn’t need to be. In this case, transmitting it becomes much more difficult, so if we know that it doesn’t need to be classified we might remove the markings and send it as an unclassified document.
Well, first the Senator should find who the recipient was.
What the heck is in a talking point that should be classified? Did these talking points include a secret shortcut for making a hydrogen bomb? Or the name of an Iranian general who is also a US spy? If so, Clinton was wrong. But classified talking points? Really?
Googling, I can’t find an indication of what talk was being pointed. But supposed she was she was going to talk to a foreign leader, and the talking point included an insulting assessment of the leader. If so, I’d say that the problem isn’t so much that the Sec. of State needs to protect that from coming out to the public, but that the Sec. of State needs to ask her staff to be more judicious, even in internal communications.
THe issue you’ve highlighted doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. If she had clearly told a subordinate to send something classified over non secure means, then that would be something, but it doesn’t seem at all clear to me that this is what she did.
What raised my eyebrows a little more was her surprise that someone in the State Dept other than her was using a private email. It just further shows that she thinks the rules don’t apply to her, but she feels free to think everyone else should abide by them.
As usual, adaher, the majority of people on this board (and in the US, if Bernie Sanders is to be believed) look at you holding a teacup, while you frantically gesticulate and state that it’s actually a tempest.
Shakespeare wrote an entire play about this quirk of yours.
Because the secretary of state never speaks in a classified setting am I right? Honestly I think the disconnect is that none of the people who think it’s not a big deal have ever held a clearance and worked in those environments. I’ve was working with the government when this happened and I’ve yet to meet a single classified worker who didn’t think they would be in jail for doing what she did or think it wasn’t a big deal.
I’ve worked in military and government for 15 years, and so far I’ve seen no evidence she did anything illegal.
And to be completely honest, if it’s her vs. ANY Republican, I won’t care if she actually DID murder Vince Foster. I’m voting for her.
Then it was okay for all State Department employees to use private email and she shouldn’t be surprised that others were using it.
From my understanding, the law wasn’t clear on that, and common practice and policy was for Secretary of States to use whatever email they choose. The law may or may not have been clearer for other State employees; I’m not sure. This is (so far) a nothing scandal.
Only in government are the managers subjected to less strict rules than subordinates on such matters.
No she won’t. Mostly because she is female but also because she is a woman. :rolleyes:
She should have been elected in 2008 but all of a sudden someone came from the wings named Obama. I mean here is a guy who appears out from thin air, has little experience, admits that in the past he was a part of a racist church body, and has a name extremely close to Osama. :smack: Nobody was going to vote for John McCain especially since his running mate was a female, Sarah Palin. :dubious: There are some who feel that Obama is going to sign an executive order making it so that he will serve another term…
I knew it!
Damn, how did the Founding Fathers miss that loophole?
Well, a President can’t sign an executive order making legal what is illegal either, but he did.
That being said, Obama’s tired. I don’t think you could get him to serve a third term if he could run.
Anyway, Clinton’s autism plan:
…
Nice. I just happen to have seen the film Temple Grandin, so the decades-long evolution from “ignorance” to “combat” to “support” in policy approaches to autism was on my mind already.
Really? See:
IT personnel and executives: Worst at security
I think it would be a plus for executives to play by the same rules. I just don’t think they do.
Your use of emoticons is mesmerizing.
Really? Who? Name names. I’ll speak to Barry and make sure they are disappeared. Permanently. He can do it. Just takes a secret Executive Order.