Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

Even if she had been using an official State Department email and server, alarm bells should have gone off if she received classified information on an unclassified system.

That information needs to be removed from the non-classified system, and the person who sent it needs to be reprimanded.

This never happened. And, worse, the information remained on an unsecured server, not maintained by our government, that was subject to hacking.

And, look, she either repeatedly lied when she said she had no classified info on her server, or she is unable to discern what information is classified.

Either should be disqualifying for holding the highest office in the land.

 

Is it criminal?

 

It would appear that just storing classified information in an unsecured manner would be criminal, yes.

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

 

Because one of the arguments from the RWSM is that she should know something is going to be classified even before it's classified.

How should she know a NY Times article is going to become classified?

 

Except at the time she had that information, it wasn't classified.

 

Yes Baron, the information was classified.

The email wasn't marked as such because it wasn't submitted for review.

But if you include classified info in an email, the email is classified.

And, technically, if you forward a NY Times article that details a classified program, you've broken the law.

People who deal with classified info know this.

And, let's stop pretending this is all about NY Times articles. It isn't.

 

Then why bother marking anything as classified since everyone is supposed to know something may be considered classified four years down the road?

 

To borrow Dick's analogy from the other thread, if you're driving 55 mph on a 55 mph dangerous highway, and then four years later, the government says that the speed limit is too high and makes it 35 mph, does that means you were a speeder and subject to being ticketed?

 

The analogy fails.

Speed limit never changed. Doesn't matter if you don't see the sign.

The information was always classified.

 

Rather an important consideration, no? Wonder how that -- its escaping being reviewed -- happened.

 

For whom?

 

It seems to be commonly overlooked (or brushed past) in this kerfuffle. If I put something in a secret compartment in my luggage so as to ensure that the immigration authorities don't see it, and later it's determined that what I put in there was illegal to bring into the country, my defense that nobody noted its being in my possession at the time rings rather hollow, doesn't it?