[Phsstpok]

documents contained in the files were labeled "Top Secret."

Fini. Done. Tau Ceti. His responsibility.

His defense is that he didn't look because he ASSUMED that they wouldn't have sent him anything classified. In the time when you say you had a responsibility for secret documents would "I assumed" have been a defense?

the SEC comment assumed disclosure and action. Duh!

[CatoRenasci]

If in fact documents in the files given to O'Neill were labedled "Top Secret", I agree with you. It was his rsesponsibility to review what he received and, if anything classified (and properly so marked) was contained in the pile, he should have immediately notified the appropriate authority (who then should have come and collected them). I agree that a defense that he assumed it wasn't classified because they didn't tell him so is weak. Whether O'Neill was merely an idiot or a felon, however, depends on the actual facts of the transmission documents and the markings on the classified documents.

Where we seem to be talking past each other is on the SEC point. In SEC-speak, "disclosure" typically means making information publically available, whether by a filing or publication. From the SEC's perspective "disclosure" is a good thing, as it puts all investors (or at least all of those who look for the available information) on a level playing field. What gets you in trouble is (1) having material nonpublic information about a publically traded security and (2) acting on it, personally or in concert with others. The opposite of disclosure, really.