Curious about your thoughts on Petraeus considered as Secretary of State?

[toomuchtime_]

No it is not, it is not even in the same realm..

Only a far left drone would seem them as the same!

Care to make a point?

He made the point that your post identifies you as either a liar or an idiot.

Baseless insults by somebody who can't make an intelligent arguement.

Not insults, observations. Your claim that Petraeus' single error in judgement in confiding classified information in an intelligence officer he had strong reasons to trust who had not been cleared for that particular information and Clinton's reckless and irresponsible disregard for security concerns clearly marks you as either a liar or an idiot.

Not an error of judgement. A wanton felony.

You should try to stick to words you understand. It was a misdemeanor, not a felony and if you knew what the word, wanton, meant you would realize there was nothing wanton about it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Wrong about what? She was an intelligence officer in the Army Reserves.

She wasn't cleared for the material. What Petraeus did was wrong and he paid a price for that mistake.

Obviously justice has been different for Republicans and military personnel than it is for Democrats over the past 8 years. I wonder why?

Peraeus was the Director of Central Intelligence. Not a Republican or a member of the military.
You have no problem with the CIA director knowingly and willfully sharing very highly classified material with someone he knew was not cleared to see it?

The person he shared these documents with was an Intelligence officer in the Army Reserves on the promotion list to become a lieutenant colonel and if she had been on active duty her security clearance would have been high enough to see them. Since she was not on active duty she was not cleared to see them, so there was an infraction of the rules but no security risk.

 

[Claudette]

This is not to mention that the person he shared this information with was also in the military, and had security clearance herself, just not the type of clearance to see that information.

Agreed.

Additionally, he was honest enough to own up to his mistake and take his punishment, unlike someone else who shared classified information and denied doing anything wrong. I think General Petraeus will be a good SoS.

"Petraeus resigned as CIA direct in November 2012, was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2015, and is currently on probation for sharing classified information with his biographer and mistress, former Army intelligence officer Paula Broadwell."

I agree. Patraeus would make a great SOS.

He's one very capable guy who knows the ins and outs. He's dealt with Congress and the POTUS and you can bet he's got a handle on world events.

He would be a better SOS than Hillary Clinton could ever be.

 

[Claudette]

lol Wrong about what? She was an intelligence officer in the Army Reserves.

She wasn't cleared for the material. What Petraeus did was wrong and he paid a price for that mistake.

Obviously justice has been different for Republicans and military personnel than it is for Democrats over the past 8 years. I wonder why?

Peraeus was the Director of Central Intelligence. Not a Republican or a member of the military.
You have no problem with the CIA director knowingly and willfully sharing very highly classified material with someone he knew was not cleared to see it?

The person he shared these documents with was an Intelligence officer in the Army Reserves on the promotion list to become a lieutenant colonel and if she had been on active duty her security clearance would have been high enough to see them. Since she was not on active duty she was not cleared to see them, so there was an infraction of the rules but no security risk.

I agree unlike Hillary who had her fucking maid faxing those documents everywhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You do know that Clinton used the gov secure system to communicate about classified material right? Her private server was intended for personal and non classified communications. She never should have muddied the water by mixing personal and business as we learned a few slipped through the cracks

Are you saying she activated her government email address?

No, the email address from the govt was for UNCLASSIFIED emails....state.gov .....She chose her server instead of the State unclassified email to receive non CLASSIFIED emails or lowest level of classified material..... She did not set up her server for top SECRET stuff.....for one, she couldn't.....there is no way to email from the top SECRET server....and 2, this email server of hers was a replacement to using the State.gov email system, which is designated by our Gvt as an Unclassified server, for daily duties.

The government set up a secure fax, in her home for her to receive CLASSIFIED info, and that is how she got higher classified material and the highest top SECRET she got while in the state dept in special rooms....never ever in email....or the secure fax.

That's not what Comey testified to. He stated to Congress that she did have classified emails on her server.

YES, she did have 7 or 8 email chains between her staff and then they forwarded them to Hillary, that were classified secret or top secret at the time they were sent to each other.... but, they were not top secret documents or anything like that...they were emails Hillary received from Syd Blumenthal, a friend of hers and it appears to be a valuable friend at that, because he was an informant... he sent all kinds of information that he felt could be important to her....and when she received these emails, she forwarded them to her aides/staffers to investigate what Syd was telling her and see if any of it can be or is true. I read that many of Syd's emails were fruitless with non-actionable information, but SOME of them would turn out to be accurate and give the State Dept information they did not know....

Well, the SOME of the emails that had information that her aides felt could be actionable information that they discovered, they forwarded back to Hillary to discuss what they found out, with her...

At the same time, our Intelligence community found out through their sources this SAME information that Syd had forwarded to Hillary that she was having her staffers check out. the State Dept did not know about the Intelligence community classification of this information and the intelligence community did not know about the State dept having this information.... at the time the emails were sent back to Hillary.

So YES, there was top level classified information in the 7 or 8 email chains, but it was NOT information they got from the IC or top secret server, but from a public source, syd blumenthal....

There can be an argument, that her staffers with top secret clearance investigating syd's emails, should have recognized the material was or should be classified to top secret perhaps, or for Hillary to recognize such, but she was above doing the actual classification, it should have been done by her aides before she ever got them forwarded to her, and marked properly....


She did not remove top secret classified material from it's proper place....which is how the law reads that you all claim she broke...there is no one that knows more about this case and Patraeus's case than Comey, he has all the clearance to see it all from both and has overseen each of those investigations, no one knows more than him... and Comey says what Patreaus did was MUCH WORSE than what Clinton did....AND he said there was no intent to break the law with the top secret info Hillary had, while with Patreaus committed obstruction of justice thru his intentional lies and passed on top secret documents to someone not authorized, INTENTIONALLY....

Hillary never did that...

What Hillary did do is destroy evidence while under subpoena and lied to Congress under oath multiple times. Nobody has their server bleach bitted to remove wedding invitations and yoga lessons.

 

[Divine Wind]

....AND he said there was no intent to break the law with the top secret info Hillary had, while with Patreaus committed obstruction of justice thru his intentional lies and passed on top secret documents to someone not authorized, INTENTIONALLY....

Hillary never did that...

He said there wasn't enough evidence to charge Hillary. He didn't give her absolution nor declare her completely innocent of all wrong-doing. In fact, what he did say was "There was classified email". He also accused Hillary of lying.


Revisiting Clinton and Classified Information
For example, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy asked Comey if Clinton was telling the truth when she said that she did not send or receive marked classified material. Comey said she wasn’t.

Gowdy, July 7: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.​

Transcript: FBI Director James B. Comey's statement on the Clinton email investigation
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What's funny is your claim I'm the one who is too partisan and not worthy of debate? LOL

I didn't say that ,dope.

LOL This reminds me of the famous Groucho (or Chico) Marx quote "who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?"

There really is no debate. You're just too partisan to see that Petraeus is damaged goods in the exact same way that Trump characterized Clinton as.

There is no debate about Petraeus, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You should complain about him as well. He's everything Trump disqualified Clinton for.

And yet she ran (and almost won) for President.

So tell me why should Hil-liar be allowed access to the most important job in the world and a General who dedicated his life to our country not even be considered for SOS?

She wasn't convicted of anything, Petraeus was.

Neither was OJ, but that doesn't mean he's not a murderer.

They both mishandled classified information. One got convicted, the other didn't. But they both did the same thing.

First, OJ was arrested, indicted and tried.
Clinton was not. to equate them is plain dumb.

Second, neither OJ nor Clinton have anything in the world to do with Petraeus or why he is or isn't eligible to be SoS.


They in no way did the same thing. It's retarded to even try and make that argument. It's simply not objectively true or possible.

They both mishandled classified information. Comey testified to that. Just because she wasn't arrested and convicted doesn't make her not guilty. If Comey did the right thing and suggested that Lynch forward the investigation to a grand jury, she wouldn't have gotten off so easily.

One did it knowingly and with the intent of doing so and was convicted.

Comey said very clearly that Clinton did not commit a crime.

The two cases are in no way similar.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Care to make a point?

He made the point that your post identifies you as either a liar or an idiot.

Baseless insults by somebody who can't make an intelligent arguement.

Not insults, observations. Your claim that Petraeus' single error in judgement in confiding classified information in an intelligence officer he had strong reasons to trust who had not been cleared for that particular information and Clinton's reckless and irresponsible disregard for security concerns clearly marks you as either a liar or an idiot.

Not an error of judgement. A wanton felony.

You should try to stick to words you understand. It was a misdemeanor, not a felony and if you knew what the word, wanton, meant you would realize there was nothing wanton about it.

The crimes were felonies.He was going to be charged accordingly. He pleaded to a lesser charge and admitted guilt.

Willfully.

Better?

 

[gipper]

Snowden has come out and said he did less than Petraeus did.

I suspect he is right. If Snowden did less than Petraus, he likely did less than Hillary. Could prove once again that the connected elites can get away with anything while the rest of us are subjected to the rule of law.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you think he will be able to get his sex / sending classified information scandal behind him, or does he not have a chance..?

David Petraeus shared classified info. Can he be secretary of state? - CNNPolitics.com


]

I think he'd be a great choice, but won't get it because Trumpenfuhrer made such a big deal about the Hillary E-mail NON-scandal.

so mishandling over classified documents is a disqualifier, but being a misogynist, racist Nazi piece of shit who scammed working people out of their hard earned money isn't.

We are lost as a country.

 

[Divine Wind]

What's funny is your claim I'm the one who is too partisan and not worthy of debate? LOL

I didn't say that ,dope.

LOL This reminds me of the famous Groucho (or Chico) Marx quote "who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?"

There really is no debate. You're just too partisan to see that Petraeus is damaged goods in the exact same way that Trump characterized Clinton as.

There is no debate about Petraeus, dope.

Translation: Fuck you, DW. You're right there is a debate about Petraeus, but fuck you anyway.

Thanks for both the backpedal and the name-calling. It' helps me to assess your IQ, education and ability to debate like an adult....or not.

 

[Divine Wind]

...We are lost as a country.

Will you be immigrating to Canada?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What's funny is your claim I'm the one who is too partisan and not worthy of debate? LOL

I didn't say that ,dope.

LOL This reminds me of the famous Groucho (or Chico) Marx quote "who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?"

There really is no debate. You're just too partisan to see that Petraeus is damaged goods in the exact same way that Trump characterized Clinton as.

There is no debate about Petraeus, dope.

Translation: Fuck you, DW. You're right there is a debate about Petraeus, but fuck you anyway.

Thanks for both the backpedal and the name-calling. It' helps me to assess your IQ, education and ability to debate like an adult....or not.

There is no backpedal,dope.
It's written in plain language. At no point do I reference you.
You're a dope for making an issue out of nothing.

What is DW?

 

[Divine Wind]

What's funny is your claim I'm the one who is too partisan and not worthy of debate? LOL

I didn't say that ,dope.

LOL This reminds me of the famous Groucho (or Chico) Marx quote "who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?"

There really is no debate. You're just too partisan to see that Petraeus is damaged goods in the exact same way that Trump characterized Clinton as.

There is no debate about Petraeus, dope.

Translation: Fuck you, DW. You're right there is a debate about Petraeus, but fuck you anyway.

Thanks for both the backpedal and the name-calling. It' helps me to assess your IQ, education and ability to debate like an adult....or not.

There is no backpedal,dope.
It's written in plain language. At no point do I reference you.
You're a dope for making an issue out of nothing.

What is DW?

LOL

There really is no debate. You're just too partisan to see that Petraeus is damaged goods in the exact same way that Trump characterized Clinton as.

Wow, what was your score on the ASVAB? The minimum?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I didn't say that ,dope.

LOL This reminds me of the famous Groucho (or Chico) Marx quote "who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?"

There really is no debate. You're just too partisan to see that Petraeus is damaged goods in the exact same way that Trump characterized Clinton as.

There is no debate about Petraeus, dope.

Translation: Fuck you, DW. You're right there is a debate about Petraeus, but fuck you anyway.

Thanks for both the backpedal and the name-calling. It' helps me to assess your IQ, education and ability to debate like an adult....or not.

There is no backpedal,dope.
It's written in plain language. At no point do I reference you.
You're a dope for making an issue out of nothing.

What is DW?

LOL

There really is no debate. You're just too partisan to see that Petraeus is damaged goods in the exact same way that Trump characterized Clinton as.

Wow, what was your score on the ASVAB? The minimum?

Nice deflectory tangent.
Petraeus is damaged goods and for that reason he will not be nominated.

 

[Divine Wind]

Nice deflectory tangent.
Petraeus is damaged goods and for that reason he will not be nominated.

Translation: It's none of your fucking business how low I scored on the ASVAB!!!

The controversy over Petraeus may, indeed, shoot down his nomination. What do you think of Romney or Corker? That said, I still think he'd make a great SoS.

Senate GOP has 'high level of angst' over Petraeus nomination - CNNPolitics.com
Several GOP senators privately said Thursday they were concerned about the political fallout if David Petraeus is nominated as secretary of state.

They were uncertain he could overcome doubts raised by his conviction for mishandling classified information and win confirmation to be secretary of state if he is picked by President-elect Donald Trump. Some were worried it could spark a major confirmation battle in the opening weeks of the Trump administration.
One GOP senator said there is a "a high level of angst" among Republican senators about the political fallout if Petraeus were to be chosen.
"I have had discussions with several of my colleagues who have expressed anxieties about this issue because, after all, this was an issue in the campaign for Hillary (Clinton) and this individual was actually convicted. It's surprising to us that he's in the mix," said the senator who agreed to speak candidly if not identified.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nice deflectory tangent.
Petraeus is damaged goods and for that reason he will not be nominated.

Translation: It's none of your fucking business how low I scored on the ASVAB!!!

The controversy over Petraeus may, indeed, shoot down his nomination. What do you think of Romney or Corker? That said, I still think he'd make a great SoS.

Senate GOP has 'high level of angst' over Petraeus nomination - CNNPolitics.com
Several GOP senators privately said Thursday they were concerned about the political fallout if David Petraeus is nominated as secretary of state.

They were uncertain he could overcome doubts raised by his conviction for mishandling classified information and win confirmation to be secretary of state if he is picked by President-elect Donald Trump. Some were worried it could spark a major confirmation battle in the opening weeks of the Trump administration.
One GOP senator said there is a "a high level of angst" among Republican senators about the political fallout if Petraeus were to be chosen.
"I have had discussions with several of my colleagues who have expressed anxieties about this issue because, after all, this was an issue in the campaign for Hillary (Clinton) and this individual was actually convicted. It's surprising to us that he's in the mix," said the senator who agreed to speak candidly if not identified.

That's why there's really no debate to be had over Petraeus.

You've removed your partisan glasses and are seeing that.

Get my point now?

 

[Divine Wind]

That's why there's really no debate to be had over Petraeus.

You've removed your partisan glasses and are seeing that.

Get my point now?

Disagreed as stated before. It's possible he won't be nominated, but it's also possible he will. Time will tell.

What partisan glasses? Which party or ideology to you believe I am partisan to?

 

[Care4all]

....AND he said there was no intent to break the law with the top secret info Hillary had, while with Patreaus committed obstruction of justice thru his intentional lies and passed on top secret documents to someone not authorized, INTENTIONALLY....

Hillary never did that...

He said there wasn't enough evidence to charge Hillary. He didn't give her absolution nor declare her completely innocent of all wrong-doing. In fact, what he did say was "There was classified email". He also accused Hillary of lying.


Revisiting Clinton and Classified Information
For example, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy asked Comey if Clinton was telling the truth when she said that she did not send or receive marked classified material. Comey said she wasn’t.

Gowdy, July 7: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.​

Transcript: FBI Director James B. Comey's statement on the Clinton email investigation
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

ALL of that you posted and Comey said, IS WHAT I HAVE EXPLAINED to you about Syd Blumenthal emails Hillary got, forwarded to her staff, they investigated and emailed each other on the State.gov UNCLASSIFIED system.....etc

The mention that an email chain, one of them was classified as Secret by the intelligence community simultaneously etc etc etc

IS WHAT I'VE been telling you....

None of the classified info was taken from gov't top secret server....all came from Syd outside Gvt...

And I Did Say it could be argued that her top aides and she should have recognize it was classified material.....as Comey said in what you posted above....