If "Intent" and/or "Gross Negligence" is the standard...

[HYHYBT]

The fact remains, if "intent" matters, neither of them should be in any legal trouble.

I remember one year, maybe sixth grade, where our tests in social studies had "fact or opinion" sections instead of "true or false." Apparently the school you went to didn't teach that.

[Kheldarson]

The fact remains, if "intent" matters, neither of them should be in any legal trouble. If the Petty Officer got busted for taking pictures of a classified area, shouldn't Hillary be in trouble for having classified documents on a private server -- BEFORE she "unclassified" them?

Answer: Yes.

Answer: no, because intent, in this case, is an unequal measure. In one case, intent mattered. In the other, it doesn't.

Stop comparing cases that don't have similar measures.

[mjr]

I remember one year, maybe sixth grade, where our tests in social studies had "fact or opinion" sections instead of "true or false." Apparently the school you went to didn't teach that.

I remember those quite well, thanks. Apparently many of our politicians (including the two currently running for President) don't understand those things.

But as I've said before: Something's not true just because you say it is.

[mjr]

Answer: no, because intent, in this case, is an unequal measure. In one case, intent mattered. In the other, it doesn't.

Stop comparing cases that don't have similar measures.

And how don't they have equal measures?

Answer: Because one of the people is HRC. And one is a Petty Officer First Class.

[Kheldarson]

And how don't they have equal measures?

Answer: Because one of the people is HRC. And one is a Petty Officer First Class.

Answer: because they're different crimes and fall under different laws.

[Daskinor]

Answer: because they're different crimes and fall under different laws.

Yes basically this, the Petty Officer First Class disobeyed a general order by bringing the phone aboard. Took pictures of something he was not supposed to with said phone. Showed others who turned him in.

Hillary received improperly redacted documents over an unsecured channel. From her State Dept staff.

[mjr]

Hillary received improperly redacted documents over an unsecured channel. From her State Dept staff.

An unsecured channel she shouldn't have had to begin with.

And in doing so potentially violated a law.

[Daskinor]

An unsecured channel she shouldn't have had to begin with.

And in doing so potentially violated a law.

Ethically no.

Exact letter of the law she was allowed.

[mjr]

Exact letter of the law she was allowed.

Not to store classified information on.

[Greenday]

Dear God I wish I saw this thread up last night. I could have shut this crap down immediately and it shouldn't have made it three pages.

I'll just point to this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

I'd say at a minimum this section is relevant.

"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Emphasis mine. So does Comey's characterization of Hillary's handling of the emails count as "gross negligence"?

The new emphasis is mine. He knowingly and willingly abstracted classified information. That's the key part of the law the he broke.

And no, Hillary's handling of the emails does not qualify as "gross negligence".

Does this mean that if a submariner wants to wear a watch while on duty, they have to get a 100% mechanical watch, rather than the more common quartz watches? If so, that could get rather expensive, since nowadays only the premium brands make mechanical watches.

That is correct, the entire sub is a classified space. So anything, even a watch would need to be gov issued.

Think about it, we exist in a world where spy tools can be put in almost anything.

Daskinor is incorrect. You can wear a watch on board. Not everything has to be government issued.

Precautions are based on the level of access. In a space where a Secret clearance is required, no technology that is able to record images, videos, or sound is allowed. No phones, no personal computers/laptops/tablets, etc. A smart watch would probably not be allowed but any ordinary analog watch would be fine.

Then why is the Naval Officer facing prison time? Can/Could anyone prove he had intent to "injure the US or aid a foreign power"?

Answer: No.

So why is HE facing prison time?

He's facing prison time because he broke a specific law intentionally. The law is you are not allowed to photograph classified information and he purposely did so. Purposely photographing classified information is a crime. Whether or not he intended to injure the US or aid a foreign power by doing so isn't relevant to this law.

An unsecured channel she shouldn't have had to begin with.

And in doing so potentially violated a law.

So people shouldn't be allowed to have personal servers at home? Because the whole server started purely to help with her foundation. Plenty of people run their own private servers at home. The reason she started her own was perfectly normal and reasonable.

No laws were violated in setting it up.

Not to store classified information on.

Can anyone actually point out all the supposed classified information that was released? People keep talking about it but can't actually name it. Just that it supposedly exists and half the time it wasn't even her who the specific email was sent by. A lot the classified material was classified AFTER the emails were already sent so they weren't even classified at the time of sending.

At worst, a normal government employee would get fired and lose their clearance. Not spend decades in jail like the Republicans wish. They are trying to make this into a much grander issue than it actually is.

That should clear up the issue. And yes, the Petty Officer's case is apples and Clinton's is oranges.

[wolfie]

Daskinor is incorrect. You can wear a watch on board. Not everything has to be government issued.

Precautions are based on the level of access. In a space where a Secret clearance is required, no technology that is able to record images, videos, or sound is allowed. No phones, no personal computers/laptops/tablets, etc. A smart watch would probably not be allowed but any ordinary analog watch would be fine.

Only analog, or any "dumb" (tells time, has calendar, possibly stopwatch) watch, even digital models? Still, it would be smart for someone going on their first deployment to ask a person in authority what reasonably-priced watches are approved for use aboard the sub, since virtually all watches now are electronic, and personal electronic devices aboard sub are forbidden.

If they could document that they had asked, and then got their purchase vetted by a person in authority before bringing it aboard, but it was then found to be a prohibited device, they'd have the defense that they'd done their due dilligence, and only brought it aboard after Officer X had cleared it. Bonus points if that model of watch is sold in the PX, with the information tag saying "This watch is approved for use aboard submarines".

[Greenday]

Only analog, or any "dumb" (tells time, has calendar, possibly stopwatch) watch, even digital models? Still, it would be smart for someone going on their first deployment to ask a person in authority what reasonably-priced watches are approved for use aboard the sub, since virtually all watches now are electronic, and personal electronic devices aboard sub are forbidden.

If they could document that they had asked, and then got their purchase vetted by a person in authority before bringing it aboard, but it was then found to be a prohibited device, they'd have the defense that they'd done their due dilligence, and only brought it aboard after Officer X had cleared it. Bonus points if that model of watch is sold in the PX, with the information tag saying "This watch is approved for use aboard submarines".

The problem with a lot of smart watches is that they can record sound. If you can talk to it, it can record sound. And you never know what apps have hidden programming forcing access to microphones. And that can wait for an internet connection infinitely to transfer information. Digital dumb watches would be fine as long as they don't have the ability to record anything.

There are security officers that can be asked. But usually you get a security briefing as a part of working a new facility, ship, whatever. You'll never find a sign like that in the PX though. Different subs might have different rules and they'd never open themselves up for trouble by making specifications like that. If you ask, they'll just tell you to check with your security officer or say they don't know.