As a holder of a security clearance, I can confirn that it's absolutely considered a "leak", and potentiallly criminal offense to transfer or store classified information onto pretty much any computer which is connected to the internet, unless there's some kind of specific and pre-approved exception in place for a particular purpose and which requires that the information be encrypted and de-crypted on "air-gapped classified local networks" and only the encrypted files ever be present on an approved system for a short time.
I can't imagine any situation in which sending such information via gmail or a similar system could ever be considered to be at all secure (terrifyingly, the FBI report on HRC's activities seemed to indicate that use of personal gmail accounts for official (often classified) business by employees at Dept of State was "standard practice" well before HRC took the lead in that department. One issue is that Federal procurement restrictions and the need for appropriations through Congress for certain purchases makes it virtually impossible for any agency other than NSA to remain within 2-3 generations of current private-sector tech, though.
Bolton wasn't wrong in saying that he'd be in prison for doing what HRC did, anyone who's cleared could get $1million in fines and 1 year in prison per violation, if they're not protected by her level of political connection and ability to pay attorneys. He's insane if he thinks that sending classified data to his family via any kind of online group chat or messenger software isn't, in the eyes of the law, at least as severe as what Hillary did using her email server.
1 - Every nation/government in the world agrees that someone stealing their secrets is a no-no. We can argue about the right or wrong of it, but that's been "the rule" as long as there have been Rulers, from the Great Khan to the modern nation state.
2 - That piece of "journalism" is so obviously a bought and paid for piece. Why are we pretending that the Media isn't what we know it is? It's raw propaganda. It's all just advertising, some paid for in cash, some in-kind, all of it ideologically aligned, dressed up in various forms of "news" or "opinion" for various interests. It's so nakedly partisan and obvious; it's not even subtle.
3 - two attorney points: (a) there are indictments, and then there are *indictments*. Yes, any half-decent prosecutor can get probable cause on a ham sandwich, but most are smart enough to know that if they get called on the carpet by a good defense attorney, they'd damn well better have BARD behind their ham sandwich indictment or it's going to get all over their shirt and tie.
(b) pro-tip: When they're obviously quoting from chats and messages, it's a good bet that they have the f*cking messages. Otherwise, they're either magicians/soothsayers or the craziest attorneys in the world with no regard for the rules of professional responsibility or the possibility of Rule 11 sanctions.
As a holder of a security clearance, I can confirn that it's absolutely considered a "leak", and potentiallly criminal offense to transfer or store classified information onto pretty much any computer which is connected to the internet, unless there's some kind of specific and pre-approved exception in place for a particular purpose and which requires that the information be encrypted and de-crypted on "air-gapped classified local networks" and only the encrypted files ever be present on an approved system for a short time.
I can't imagine any situation in which sending such information via gmail or a similar system could ever be considered to be at all secure (terrifyingly, the FBI report on HRC's activities seemed to indicate that use of personal gmail accounts for official (often classified) business by employees at Dept of State was "standard practice" well before HRC took the lead in that department. One issue is that Federal procurement restrictions and the need for appropriations through Congress for certain purchases makes it virtually impossible for any agency other than NSA to remain within 2-3 generations of current private-sector tech, though.
Bolton wasn't wrong in saying that he'd be in prison for doing what HRC did, anyone who's cleared could get $1million in fines and 1 year in prison per violation, if they're not protected by her level of political connection and ability to pay attorneys. He's insane if he thinks that sending classified data to his family via any kind of online group chat or messenger software isn't, in the eyes of the law, at least as severe as what Hillary did using her email server.
The 1960s protest kids are collectively screaming at the coming twilight to their influence.
They're pretty annoying no matter where they do it.
I had to fast forward past the shouting Portlanders. Cringe.
Gentlemen,
1 - Every nation/government in the world agrees that someone stealing their secrets is a no-no. We can argue about the right or wrong of it, but that's been "the rule" as long as there have been Rulers, from the Great Khan to the modern nation state.
2 - That piece of "journalism" is so obviously a bought and paid for piece. Why are we pretending that the Media isn't what we know it is? It's raw propaganda. It's all just advertising, some paid for in cash, some in-kind, all of it ideologically aligned, dressed up in various forms of "news" or "opinion" for various interests. It's so nakedly partisan and obvious; it's not even subtle.
3 - two attorney points: (a) there are indictments, and then there are *indictments*. Yes, any half-decent prosecutor can get probable cause on a ham sandwich, but most are smart enough to know that if they get called on the carpet by a good defense attorney, they'd damn well better have BARD behind their ham sandwich indictment or it's going to get all over their shirt and tie.
(b) pro-tip: When they're obviously quoting from chats and messages, it's a good bet that they have the f*cking messages. Otherwise, they're either magicians/soothsayers or the craziest attorneys in the world with no regard for the rules of professional responsibility or the possibility of Rule 11 sanctions.