Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score 1, Informative) 325

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (paragraphs e and f) Marked or unmarked is irrelevant. As is intent. She signed a SF 312 Non-Disclosure agreement that outlined quite clearly her obligation to protect the classified information she was entrusted with due to her position. Your claims of alternate facts are the only thing Alternate. Everyone granted a security clearance signs the same NDR form and faces the same penalties for failure to comply. And as per 18 793 (f) intent does not matter, negligence is still a crime.

Others have addressed your falsehoods about deleting the emails.

Now that we have a new AG, I expect charges to come soon. Though the super citizen protections she seems to enjoy might still prevent them.

Comment Re:That's becoming a meme (Score 2, Informative) 325

USC 18 793. Her crimes specifically fit sub paragraphs (e) or (f). If (e), it's often referred to as deliberate security compromise, if (f) it's failure to protect/mishandling of Classified Information. (f) is most likely to be charged as it requires no intent. You mishandle classified information, you have violated this law.

Both (e) and (f) carry a fine of up to $10,000 and a sentence of up to 10 years. She should face a count for each email sent from her account. For any emails containing classified information originating from someone else, that person faces the same charge and she could face another count of (f) for failure to report a violation.

The law is clear the penalties are clear and those punished for such crimes? Many, some much more egregious as hers due to being intentional attempts to spy. But here is a list of some so prosecuted for violating this law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Soviet_spies.2C_late_20th_century
If you continue from that point down to the 21st century you find Kenneth Wayne Ford, who never transmitted to an unauthorized person but simply retained classified information. I have a much more detailed list of individuals convicted at home but am at work currently.

Comment Re:That's becoming a meme (Score 1, Informative) 325

Comey lied when he said that. Mishandling classified information via negligence is still a felony that has no intent requirement. The act of being negligent with classified information is a felony crime.

Please cite the actual ties to Russia that you claim Trump has. He's complimented Putin a few times for being a real leader as opposed to Obama. But I've seen no evidence of any actual ties.

Comment Re:That's becoming a meme (Score 4, Informative) 325

What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"?

Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.

Comment Re: Isn't this illegal? (Score 2) 325

And Presidents don't plan raids and other tactical operations. At most they get advised that a raid is planned and ready to be executed on their approval, but the planning is all much lower. Any failures in the planning are at the tactical unit level and maybe as high as JSOC but not above that.

Comment Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score 1) 325

It depends, is it actually the administration? or is it the RNC or Trump Campaign? Both are private organizations not required to retain/release such info, and legally required to not use government IT resources. If the Administration then yes and as a staunch Republican I'll readily agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed to bring them in compliance. But if the RNC, or Trump Campaign then no it's not a concern, they are free to secure and destroy their communications.

Comment Re:History lesson (Score 3, Insightful) 333

Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.

Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.

There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government. And he does not have a private military/police force to enforce his will. Additionally Trump is not beloved of the GOP establishment. That means neither side of the aisle in the legislative branch really trusts him. So far he is just fulfilling campaign promises so he mostly has their support. But should he start straying he will lose that support in a hurry. Neither party trusts him. (That's actually good, it means he will have to negotiate to get the stuff he's promising that require laws to be passed.) Neither party will stand for it if he were to try to exceed his constitutional authorities and limits.

Trump is not Hitler. He can't be. Hitler couldn't have been Hitler under our form of government. At most he could have been FDR and Interned citizens (but not exterminated them).

Comment Re:I don't get it either. (Score 1) 437

And your last sentence proves you have zero reading comprehension. It is NOT a ban on Muslim refugees. It is a ban, or rather a delay on Refugees from seven nations (yes predominantly Muslim but not 100% Muslim). The Order affects all citizens of those nations regardless of their faith, including the heavily oppressed Christian and Yazidi minorities found in those nations (Yazidi are in Iraq and Syria not the other nations).

Comment Re:They don't get it. (Score 1) 437

Actually re-entry is not even guaranteed for a Citizen. You have the right to travel out of the country. Your rights on attempt to re-enter are greatly reduced. And the Gov can and has banned re-entry by Citizens before trapping thousands outside the country around the world. (the week post 9/11, nobody was flying here, not even citizens.)

Comment Re:They don't get it. (Score 1) 437

Just because the attackers were incompetent does not lesson the fact that in the last year two Somali refugees conducted two separate attacks resulting in multiple injuries. One in Minnesota resulting in 9 innocent victims stabbed (luckily none died) before the perp was shot and killed by an officer. And the Ohio State Car and knife attack, again luckily none of the victims died and a police officer was able to quickly respond and end the attack.

So nobody died. But terror attacks still happened, and the incompetence of the attacker does not diminish the attempt or the extensive injuries and trauma suffered by their victims.

Or do we have to let American Citizens be killed before we react?

Slashdot Top Deals

Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.

Working...