I'm not a Republican and frankly I thought they were just muckraking till now, however if this information is correct then she is likely guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information (if not other laws and oaths as well) and should be tried and punished appropriately. Since she's one of the elite it will likely get swept under the rug instead.
It is muckraking.
The information was not deemed classified until long after the emails were sent. This happens a lot in government emails as situations evolve and when it does, recommended procedure is to clean up what you can and not discuss the issue any further on the low side. This is a dangerous game that the Republicans are playing because politicians on both sides likely have (retroactively) classified information that was once emailed as unclassified. (You wouldn't, for example, post new releases saying that her emails had classified email... like is currently happening!) What server is was stored on is irrelevant if it was emailed over an open network. It's not like government servers are specially protected in a magical way anyway... look at the recent Office of Personnel Management breech.
Frankly, if you want to be mad at the Democrats, be mad at Obama instead. He likely disclosed a spectacular amount of classified information on the Bin Laden raid, both in terms of the actual raid specifics, seal team operation protocols, and CIA surveillance capabilities. Then he used presidential discretion to justify and declassify it.
It's interesting that all of the well-publicized national security breeches seem happen just before presidential elections!
Really? I'm not sure which three letter agency you worked for, but they need to be investigated. I spent about 6 years working for the DoD and I can't tell you the meetings I never attended, the people I did work for and things I never did because of "national security" I'd wager 3/4 of that was later declassified especially when the inventory shows that things were used or issued and the logs don't show the date of use (99% was considered expendable and none were considered sensitive items.) We had people come into my workplace who never signed the visitor log, were never screened but were immediately ushered into our senior officer's office and he was notified he had a "guest" in his office if he wasn't in. The vast majority I found out later were simply couriers who had things that only he was allowed to view/handle, so in reality we would have treated them like any other courier and wouldn't be in the building long enough to sign the log, but I did escort a couple of people to an exit that was not visible from the front of our building & was used almost exclusively as a smoking area. Each time I was asked if they signed the log, did you write down/note anything. if I did it had to be turned over to the officer. When I was brand new to the job, I had to turn over a duty log and rewrite it with no mention of a certain person who entered and exited from a normally unused door. This post is intentionally vague as I don't want folks in suits knocking on my door (which they do have my address although I no longer work for DoD) asking about what I posted on
Yup. Same law that says you can unionize says they can't stop you from sharing pay and benefits information.
The law says they cannot; However, most employers feel the law is unfair to the employer and may very well intentionally disobey the law in a subtle manner.
If they find you shared your salary, then your company might find another reason to fire you and terminate you for that other reason. In an at-will state it's easier..... "According to the latest performance review, you're just not a good fit for our company, so we have to let you go."
Google could technically do the same for everyone on that spreadsheet. Sharing their own salary info would not be mentioned on the official papers as reason for termination, But their accessing/showing the spreadsheet could be grounds for termination upon suspicion of gaining unauthorized access to HR systems.
Companies need to make the money, and employment costs going up would be a huge negative for the shareholders and managers' bonuses.
I've seen this happen in companies that I have worked for in the past. There was one employee who was actively trying to convince the technical operations department (in a CATV company) to unionize. A Senior VP (known for his anti-union stance) came for a visit and spoke to the department strongly encouraging them to not follow a vocal minority. Within a few months everyone known to be involved had been fired for violations of company policies. I had a supervisor who actually told us in a team meeting that if he heard that we were sharing our pay information he would do everything in his power to fire us for cause. When someone on our team went to his manager he denied the statement and explained it away. His nose was brown enough the manager bought it and ignored it. Not long after that he started picking off team members one by one for various reasons, starting with the guy who went to his manager. It took him nearly a year but got around to me as I wouldn't play by his rules. I didn't care what anyone else made, I just knew my supervisor was ineffective and made that clear, although not directly. I was told that after me he went after another senior tech, the supervisor was shown the door rather quickly, that tech had friends in high places.
Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.