Does mishandling classified information make you unfit for command?

Learning that you have made a mistake in how to handled classified information in your past is another way of asking this question, because the issue is have your learned from your mistakes. So while we may say it is not tolerated in the military, we are forced to accept facts, civilians are not military, and civilians will use this is a justification to vote against Hillary others will say she has learned from her mistakes.

No it does not. But to what extent of mishandling?

That is only one of many reasons that Hillary is unfit for command.

I hold a TS/SCI clearance. If I were to walk out of my office holding classified information and it not be properly labeled and double wrapped in a secure bag, well let's just say losing my clearance would be the least of my worries. But now I can use the defense of "I didn't intentionally mean to so we are all cool. Right?"

It would if your were a S2 officer or any officer, for that matter, entrusted with classified material.

For those who have not read the code or perhaps not posted it...here it is:
Sylvia Davis Why is hilary not be prosecuted? Federal Law: Title 18. Section 2071
Can it be any clearer?
Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it "disqualifies" her from holding any federal office.
Such as, say, President of the United States.
"If you do this or that bad thing, you've essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world," said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.
Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here's what it says:
“(a)
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b)
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
Shouldn't voters know that? The media won't tell them. So it's up to us. Can you help hold Hillary accountable?

We military types have been deeply indoctrinated into "follow every rule..loose lips...etc." That's exactly the kind of mindset a military person must have, to ensure that one of our millions of (relatively) low ranking minions like you and me doesn't leave a secret out for the cleaning lady to pick up.

Technical point: Each agency, State, Energy, Defense, etc, has it's own RULES about handling classified. THE LAWS are not concerned with handling, the laws are concerned with spying. It is illegal to willfully give another country secrets that give that country an advantage. To get a conviction, the government must prove intent. I think they also have to prove damage.

Related: Did you know that elected officials do NOT need clearances to see secret stuff? And the "handling class info" course is voluntary. It cannot be imposed on them. Many of our civilian leadership couldn't even qualify for a clearance, but they must be allowed to see secrets to do their jobs as senators and representatives.

Your question said "command." Does mishandling clas info mean she cannot be a military commander of a military unit? Maybe so. She certainly couldn't be a lower ranking person, for sure, without courses in handling clas info.

Some perspective:
1. Truman told Stalin we had the atomic bomb (to impress him, really). That was a super secret deliberately given to the man who Truman knew would soon be our enemy.
2. When the Dep Director of the FBI (Deep Throat) gave secrets about the FBI's investigation into Watergate to reporters Woodward and Bernstein, was he a criminal or a hero?
3. Many of our presidents have deliberately leaked secrets for the purposes of accomplishing a goal.

Your question MEANT "commander-in-chief," yes? Does mishandling clas info mean she cannot be the leader of the world? No, absolutely not a problem.

At the level of "world mover," those people have drivers and maids so they can concentrate on the big things. They also have aides, executive assistants, and military minions like you and me to take care of the administrative tasks of properly marking, storing, and transmitting secret stuff. The president is not to be bothered with that kind of administrivia.

She should have done better. Her people should have done a LOT better.

When your job is to persuade a country to move an oil pipeline so that another country won't go to war with us, nobody cares if you double-bagged your properly marked papers with an authorized cover sheet in a regulation locked briefcase.

In a world that needs a strong, highly focused leader, at least 50 percent of the US people want her to be the most powerful political leader in the world--regardless of how well she pays attention to administrative rules.

We require certain things before a person is considered qualified to run for a particular office: residency in a district or state among other things.

Why not require a candidate to pre-qualify for a clearance? I realize that we would loose 80% of Congress with this one, but if handling secured/classified material is required for a job then that person must be both competent to do so and willing to do so. Hillary is not one of these and her actions have told us so.

As an MI soldier, I would yes & no. Yes because you're handling sensitive information and depending upon your position, you ought to know that whatever you say has a detrimental effect on whatever situation, mission, etc. you're involved in. But then I say no because if you ever worked inside a SCIF, you'd be surprised what people do with Top Secret & Secret information. It'd blow your mind

LTC (Join to see), not only did she mishandle highly classified documents, but she did it intentionally, then stonewalled, lied, allowed lawyers without any security clearance to sort and destroy evidence, and maintained her lies to the public, secure in the belief that the Obama administration would cover for her.

And they did. Now the only government Department that still had any credibility left has been corrupted from the top.

Elections have consequences.