USA TODAY: Secretary without honor

[Bill USA]

99. if you will notice, the url you put in OP shows the article is in the OPINION section of the paper.

here's the url: "http://www.usatoday.com/story/OPINION/2016/06/05/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-consequences-integrity-honesty-column/85205018/"


If you got the hard copy of the paper, at the top of the page it has the title: "OPINION" indicating that section of the paper is not composed of News articles, but of Opinion pieces.

Nothing wrong with opinions - just don't try to pass them off as news stories as you did.

It's fine to ask questions, but Repugnants are making conclusions before all the results are. I too have quoted informed opinion - those of Attorney's who have prosecuted and defended people charged with breaking laws governing handling of classified information who have said that without proving intent, it's very unlikely there will be a prosecution*. It is peddling disinformation when statements are made as if it's a foregone conclusion that HRC will be indicted - rather than saying it's somebody's judgement call re the outcome. So far, any emails represented as containing classified info were classified after the fact, not when HRC received them.


* The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

[font size="3"]“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.[/font]

“It’s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn’t used,” said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn’t normally lead to criminal cases.

~~
~~

[font size="3"]First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.[/font]

[font size="3"]Potential criminal violations arise when officials knowingly disseminate documents marked as classified to unauthorized officials or on unclassified systems, or otherwise misuse classified materials.[/font] That happened in two cases involving former CIA directors that are cited as parallels for the Clinton e-mail issue, but are quite different. John Deutch was pardoned in 2001 for using an unsecured CIA computer at his home to improperly access classified material; he reportedly had been prepared to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in April for “knowingly” removing classified documents from authorized locations and retaining them at “unauthorized locations.” Neither case fits the fact pattern with the Clinton e-mails.
(more)