2016-08-24, 03:55 PM
Flonne Wrote:Based on the laws of the country, someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that is literally the only way I feel she could be interpreted as innocent at this point. In all other ways but legally, she is guilty, and she is only not guilty from a legal standpoint because she is "too big to fail" and they would rather bail her out than bring her down and have to deal with all the preceding fallout.
While I believe all of this is true to an extant, I wanted to clarify the legal interpretation since this isn't what I meant. The laws regarding the sharing of classified information attempts to legislate intent. Knowingly sharing classified information is illegal. Unknowingly, even through gross incompetence, is not. Note that I'm not a lawyer and this is simply based on a friend that is a lawyer, my interpretation of the relevant laws, and my personal experience in a relevant field. The only incident I know of personally where a person violated clearance requirement led to being summarily fired and no doubt banned from obtaining a clearance in the future, but no criminal prosecution. My impression is that this is the standard action taken.
From all of this, I conclude that she is actually innocent. Mind, I'm not thrilled about her maintaining a security clearance or having access to nuclear launch codes because her incompetence and that of her staff is a very real security risk.