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

[Divine Wind]

the General got a slap on the wrist because he's a well connected white man .

You act like he was busted for a dui or somthing . No, dui Guys would get a harsher punishment .

LOL

Just pointing out how our justice system is bias . That's all .

Do you think it's not ?

Dude, you claimed he was given a pass because he was white. That's racist. The fact you don't recognize it's racist is very, very interesting to me.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't think she is honest and forthright, I don't think she is completely innocent. I never claimed that. I think she broke the rules, it was exposed and investigated. It was careless and wrong but not criminal as deemed by the FBI. It was wrong and should have been talked about but also grossly overblown by her opponents during the campaign

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do you trust Hillary? I do not. Do I trust Petraeus? Yes, I do. Do you? Politics aside, do you think Petraeus would be a good SoS or not?

The same arguement could be used for Hillary for president.

I'm personally fine with Petraeus as SOS but I think we can do better, and don't think it is a smart choice for Trump considering the hypocrisy.

Petraeus knowingly gave classified info to somebody who he know wasn't cleared. He then lied about it then later admitted to it and plead to a fine and probation. Not sure how you find him now trustworthy or how it's any different than hillaries situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. ....

No, you do trust those convicted of misdemeanors and who have served their sentence or no you don't trust them?

the General got a slap on the wrist because he's a well connected white man .

You act like he was busted for a dui or somthing . No, dui Guys would get a harsher punishment .

Correct. It has nothing to do with him dedicating his life to serve our country.

What's that got to do with the crime ?

"Ok you murdered a prostitute . But you served your country so you are free to go!"


Ps . Generals live a charmed life . Hardly a sacrifice. If anything he should be held to a higher standard.

Nothing more charming than going to war and nearly getting your head blown off. Do you think they just accept public applications for Generals in our military or what??? Maybe the unemployment office sends them there?

Murder and showing your girlfriend classified information are not the same thing.

 

[Eaglewings]

the General got a slap on the wrist because he's a well connected white man .

You act like he was busted for a dui or somthing . No, dui Guys would get a harsher punishment .

LOL

Just pointing out how our justice system is bias . That's all .

Do you think it's not ?

Dude, you claimed he was given a pass because he was white. That's racist. The fact you don't recognize it's racist is very, very interesting to me.

If it was Obama , he would be hanging from a tree right now... and that is racist
Not claiming a white dude had many other white dudes giving him the pass..

.

 

[Care4all]

Nice attempt at spin. What did I lie about?
Patraeus intentionally gave classified info to his mistress who did not have clearance. It was illegal. He was convicted. It was not disputed. These are facts.

Clinton carelessly mishandled classified information by using a private email server instead of the state departments servers. The FBI investigated for months. They concluded that it was careless but they did not see enough cause to prosecute. Facts

I provided a link That provides many quotes from the director of the FBI Commenting under oath and in detail about the Patraeus case vs the Clinton case.

Paula Brodwell was an intelligence officer in the Army Reserves, and if she had been on active duty at the time, there would have been no problem giving her that information, but since she wasn't on active duty and since there was no military necessity to read her in, it was an infraction of the rules to give her this classified information, but there was no security risk.

On the other hand, Clinton's reckless and irresponsible disregard of security rules did present a clear security risk to the US. We know that at least hundreds of those emails she sent contained classified information and we know that some of her correspondents had been hacked, so we have no idea how much damage she did to the US because so many of her emails were deleted before they could be examined. We do know that there was clear criminal intent because five of her top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Huma, demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI.

It is ridiculous to say there was no intent because she was merely careless. Does "careless" mean that neither she nor any of her top staff was able to understand what the rules are for handling classified information? Unless you believe Clinton and her whole staff were just hopelessly incompetent, you can't believe they didn't know what the rules were, so that means they knew what the rules were but chose to disregard them, which clearly shows intent and should have produced a recommendation to charge Clinton with mishandling classified information.

So why did Comey make the ridiculous statement that Clinton was careless but had no intent to break the law? Did he mean she and her staff were too incompetent to know what the rules for handling classified materials were? More probably, he understood that if he recommended charges be brought it would have effectively ended Clinton's campaign and made Trump president.

Let's make this really simple and take away the spin. Mishandling classified information by storing on a private unapproved device is a lesser offense than intentionally giving classified information to somebody who is not approved to see it. In one case the FBI recommended indictment and the other they did not

So we can clear up part of the question of whether you are a liar or an idiot. You just made up "Mishandling classified information by storing on a private unapproved device is a lesser offense than intentionally giving classified information to somebody who is not approved to see it", but that still leaves open the question of whether you are also an idiot.

Well in one case the offender was prosecuted and convicted and in the other the FBI concluded there wasn't strong enough evidence to prosecute. So, No, I didn't make it up, and the fact that you can't recognize this very common knowledge points to you being the idiot

But what was Comey's conclusion based on? The legal evidence or the political argument that to charge Clinton would effectively end her campaign and make Trump president. There certainly was enough legal cause to at least convene a federal grand jury, so to ignore this fact would make you incredibly naive and your reliance solely on Comey's conclusion would strengthen the argument you are indeed, an idiot.

Oh that's just pure bullcrud. The comey announcement to congress on reopening the case ended her run for the presidency....it was Wrong for him to do it when he didn't know at that time if there was anything new and incriminating....it was truly the republican congress critters that ran to the press and spread all kinds of rumors, they should be FIRED or impeached for doing that....

 

[Slade3200]

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?

Ok...so did you watch the video? Did you see where you were wrong about Petraeus lying? Or are you going to say Comey lied about that?

Of course Comey lied. Saying that Clinton was careless means either that she and her staff were not competent to understand the rules for handling classified material or that she chose to disregard them, which would show intent and be a chargeable offense.

Intent to what?

Intent to mishandle classified materials. The only alternative explanation to Clinton deliberately ignoring the rules for some purpose is that she and her staff had no idea what the rules were, and that is not credible. If you need further proof of intent to commit a crime, five of her top aides, including her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI.

Yes and that's my point. Somebody who knowingly mishandled classified info by storing it on a private device versus somebody who knowingly handed it over to somebody who was not cleared to view it are two very different things and the later is a more serious offense

 

[Lewdog]

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?

Ok...so did you watch the video? Did you see where you were wrong about Petraeus lying? Or are you going to say Comey lied about that?

Of course Comey lied. Saying that Clinton was careless means either that she and her staff were not competent to understand the rules for handling classified material or that she chose to disregard them, which would show intent and be a chargeable offense.

Intent to what?

Intent to mishandle classified materials. The only alternative explanation to Clinton deliberately ignoring the rules for some purpose is that she and her staff had no idea what the rules were, and that is not credible. If you need further proof of intent to commit a crime, five of her top aides, including her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI.

Yes and that's my point. Somebody who knowingly mishandled classified info by storing it on a private device versus somebody who knowingly handed it over to somebody who was not cleared to view it are two very different things and the later is a more serious offense

Imagine if the chick that Petraeus handed all this stuff over to was actually an undercover operative? It very easily could have happened.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Paula Brodwell was an intelligence officer in the Army Reserves, and if she had been on active duty at the time, there would have been no problem giving her that information, but since she wasn't on active duty and since there was no military necessity to read her in, it was an infraction of the rules to give her this classified information, but there was no security risk.

On the other hand, Clinton's reckless and irresponsible disregard of security rules did present a clear security risk to the US. We know that at least hundreds of those emails she sent contained classified information and we know that some of her correspondents had been hacked, so we have no idea how much damage she did to the US because so many of her emails were deleted before they could be examined. We do know that there was clear criminal intent because five of her top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Huma, demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI.

It is ridiculous to say there was no intent because she was merely careless. Does "careless" mean that neither she nor any of her top staff was able to understand what the rules are for handling classified information? Unless you believe Clinton and her whole staff were just hopelessly incompetent, you can't believe they didn't know what the rules were, so that means they knew what the rules were but chose to disregard them, which clearly shows intent and should have produced a recommendation to charge Clinton with mishandling classified information.

So why did Comey make the ridiculous statement that Clinton was careless but had no intent to break the law? Did he mean she and her staff were too incompetent to know what the rules for handling classified materials were? More probably, he understood that if he recommended charges be brought it would have effectively ended Clinton's campaign and made Trump president.

Let's make this really simple and take away the spin. Mishandling classified information by storing on a private unapproved device is a lesser offense than intentionally giving classified information to somebody who is not approved to see it. In one case the FBI recommended indictment and the other they did not

So we can clear up part of the question of whether you are a liar or an idiot. You just made up "Mishandling classified information by storing on a private unapproved device is a lesser offense than intentionally giving classified information to somebody who is not approved to see it", but that still leaves open the question of whether you are also an idiot.

Well in one case the offender was prosecuted and convicted and in the other the FBI concluded there wasn't strong enough evidence to prosecute. So, No, I didn't make it up, and the fact that you can't recognize this very common knowledge points to you being the idiot

But what was Comey's conclusion based on? The legal evidence or the political argument that to charge Clinton would effectively end her campaign and make Trump president. There certainly was enough legal cause to at least convene a federal grand jury, so to ignore this fact would make you incredibly naive and your reliance solely on Comey's conclusion would strengthen the argument you are indeed, an idiot.

Oh that's just pure bullcrud. The comey announcement to congress on reopening the case ended her run for the presidency....it was Wrong for him to do it when he didn't know at that time if there was anything new and incriminating....it was truly the republican congress critters that ran to the press and spread all kinds of rumors, they should be FIRED or impeached for doing that....

Fired or impeached? Why, what law did they break? And you mean if the shoes were on the other feet, the Democrats would have kept such information under cover? Give me a break.

 

[Slade3200]

If people were truly objective then the Hillary supporters that excused her behavior should also excuse Petraeus, and the Trump supporters that wanted Hillary disqualified from running should not support Petraeus. If he is nominated there will be hypocrisy on both sides.

This is true, but what do you want to bet it will be the exact opposite?

The opposite of what? We've already seen Trump supporters supporting Petraeus JUST because they feel Hillary got off the hook.

So one minute they had ethics and morals saying Hillary should be locked up, and the next they want a guy that actually plead guilty to a crime as the third highest position in government.

The opposite of what? The opposite of leftists not making a big deal about Petreaus because of his past. I want to see these hypocrites make a big deal out of it.

So this is one of those... we''ll give up on Hillary being a criminal as soon as you guys forgive Petraeus? yeah... that's not going to work. How about, both are guilty, so pick a different person for Sec. of State?

Okay, but the people that will complain about him will be the same people that voted for Hillary. That's what I want to rub in.

There is nothing to rub in. Those who complain will be pointing out an obvious hypocrisy and double standard. I really don't see how you can deny this

 

[Divine Wind]

..
Ps . Generals live a charmed life . Hardly a sacrifice. If anything he should be held to a higher standard.

LOL.

So, not only are you racist, but you're anti-military. Unsurprising since most LWers hate the military just like you.

Most vets know that all Generals start out as recruits. Some as enlisted, some as butter bar lieutenants, but still at the bottom of the pecking order. It's not like 1%ers such as Chelsea Clinton who is shot to the top because of elitist privilege. The military is a merit based system, something you clearly do not understand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok...so did you watch the video? Did you see where you were wrong about Petraeus lying? Or are you going to say Comey lied about that?

Of course Comey lied. Saying that Clinton was careless means either that she and her staff were not competent to understand the rules for handling classified material or that she chose to disregard them, which would show intent and be a chargeable offense.

Intent to what?

Intent to mishandle classified materials. The only alternative explanation to Clinton deliberately ignoring the rules for some purpose is that she and her staff had no idea what the rules were, and that is not credible. If you need further proof of intent to commit a crime, five of her top aides, including her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI.

Yes and that's my point. Somebody who knowingly mishandled classified info by storing it on a private device versus somebody who knowingly handed it over to somebody who was not cleared to view it are two very different things and the later is a more serious offense

Imagine if the chick that Petraeus handed all this stuff over to was actually an undercover operative? It very easily could have happened.

So what was more likely to happen, his girlfriend who was also in the military with government security clearance was an undercover operative, or that the Russians and Chinese (among others) intercepted Hillary's transmissions to and from that unsecured server or otherwise hacked into it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is true, but what do you want to bet it will be the exact opposite?

The opposite of what? We've already seen Trump supporters supporting Petraeus JUST because they feel Hillary got off the hook.

So one minute they had ethics and morals saying Hillary should be locked up, and the next they want a guy that actually plead guilty to a crime as the third highest position in government.

The opposite of what? The opposite of leftists not making a big deal about Petreaus because of his past. I want to see these hypocrites make a big deal out of it.

So this is one of those... we''ll give up on Hillary being a criminal as soon as you guys forgive Petraeus? yeah... that's not going to work. How about, both are guilty, so pick a different person for Sec. of State?

Okay, but the people that will complain about him will be the same people that voted for Hillary. That's what I want to rub in.

There is nothing to rub in. Those who complain will be pointing out an obvious hypocrisy and double standard. I really don't see how you can deny this

I don't see how you would be able to deny it is they who are hypocrites by voting for Hillary and then protesting Petreaus.

 

[Lewdog]

Of course Comey lied. Saying that Clinton was careless means either that she and her staff were not competent to understand the rules for handling classified material or that she chose to disregard them, which would show intent and be a chargeable offense.

Intent to what?

Intent to mishandle classified materials. The only alternative explanation to Clinton deliberately ignoring the rules for some purpose is that she and her staff had no idea what the rules were, and that is not credible. If you need further proof of intent to commit a crime, five of her top aides, including her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI.

Yes and that's my point. Somebody who knowingly mishandled classified info by storing it on a private device versus somebody who knowingly handed it over to somebody who was not cleared to view it are two very different things and the later is a more serious offense

Imagine if the chick that Petraeus handed all this stuff over to was actually an undercover operative? It very easily could have happened.

So what was more likely to happen, his girlfriend who was also in the military with government security clearance was an undercover operative, or that the Russians and Chinese (among others) intercepted Hillary's transmissions to and from that unsecured server or otherwise hacked into it?

She didn't have the proper clearance to view the documents he had. Do you think he would have shared those documents with someone he wasn't having an affair with?

 

[Slade3200]

Nice attempt at spin. What did I lie about?
Patraeus intentionally gave classified info to his mistress who did not have clearance. It was illegal. He was convicted. It was not disputed. These are facts.

Clinton carelessly mishandled classified information by using a private email server instead of the state departments servers. The FBI investigated for months. They concluded that it was careless but they did not see enough cause to prosecute. Facts

I provided a link That provides many quotes from the director of the FBI Commenting under oath and in detail about the Patraeus case vs the Clinton case.

Paula Brodwell was an intelligence officer in the Army Reserves, and if she had been on active duty at the time, there would have been no problem giving her that information, but since she wasn't on active duty and since there was no military necessity to read her in, it was an infraction of the rules to give her this classified information, but there was no security risk.

On the other hand, Clinton's reckless and irresponsible disregard of security rules did present a clear security risk to the US. We know that at least hundreds of those emails she sent contained classified information and we know that some of her correspondents had been hacked, so we have no idea how much damage she did to the US because so many of her emails were deleted before they could be examined. We do know that there was clear criminal intent because five of her top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Huma, demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI.

It is ridiculous to say there was no intent because she was merely careless. Does "careless" mean that neither she nor any of her top staff was able to understand what the rules are for handling classified information? Unless you believe Clinton and her whole staff were just hopelessly incompetent, you can't believe they didn't know what the rules were, so that means they knew what the rules were but chose to disregard them, which clearly shows intent and should have produced a recommendation to charge Clinton with mishandling classified information.

So why did Comey make the ridiculous statement that Clinton was careless but had no intent to break the law? Did he mean she and her staff were too incompetent to know what the rules for handling classified materials were? More probably, he understood that if he recommended charges be brought it would have effectively ended Clinton's campaign and made Trump president.

Let's make this really simple and take away the spin. Mishandling classified information by storing on a private unapproved device is a lesser offense than intentionally giving classified information to somebody who is not approved to see it. In one case the FBI recommended indictment and the other they did not

So we can clear up part of the question of whether you are a liar or an idiot. You just made up "Mishandling classified information by storing on a private unapproved device is a lesser offense than intentionally giving classified information to somebody who is not approved to see it", but that still leaves open the question of whether you are also an idiot.

Well in one case the offender was prosecuted and convicted and in the other the FBI concluded there wasn't strong enough evidence to prosecute. So, No, I didn't make it up, and the fact that you can't recognize this very common knowledge points to you being the idiot

But what was Comey's conclusion based on? The legal evidence or the political argument that to charge Clinton would effectively end her campaign and make Trump president. There certainly was enough legal cause to at least convene a federal grand jury, so to ignore this fact would make you incredibly naive and your reliance solely on Comey's conclusion would strengthen the argument you are indeed, an idiot.

Yeah, keep running with conspiracy cover up theory and calling me an idiot... it's obvious who the idiot is

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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."

Y'all are kidding right?

Are you saying he did not own up to it?

Silly far left drone!

No im not saying that. I'm saying Patraeus showed intent by choosing to disclose classified info to somebody who did not have the clearance. Clinton showed carelessness but no intent

Wrong. Broadwell's clearance was exactly the same as Petraeus.

 

[Slade3200]

I couldn't tell you. The fact that it was reviewed by the FBI and it didn't change their thoughts about prosecuting leads me to believe that criminal activity wasn't found

Not quite. The actual testimony was "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

In short, there was not enough evidence to support a conviction. You know, just like the OJ trial.

OJ was prosecuted and the decision was decided by a jury. Stop using that example. It's closer to a cop pulling somebody over for speeding and letting them go with a warning. Or a cop speeding without cause and not getting a ticket. Both situations involve breaking the law, but judgement was made by an authoritative body not to press charges. Is it fair? No. but it is also a mostly accepted part of the system

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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


View attachment 100796

Petraeus is a brilliant talented leader who would be the most qualified for the job and he is very impressive when testifying before Congress so I think he would be easily confirmed. He did have an affair while married, but America just elected a president who has had three wives and cheated on at least one of them, so I don't think this will stand in his way.

He didn't send classified information, he confided classified information to some one he had reason to trust and while this is a crime, the question is, does this single instance of poor judgement mean he can't be trusted in the future?

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.

Not to mention, he lied to the FBI, admitted guilt in a plea to the lesser, was convicted and is still on probation.

Tell us again about why Clinton shouldn't have a clearance.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

he's be a good choice

Trump used his situation in the campaign to highlight the disparity of treatment that Hillary received over irresponsibility in guarding secrets - said a "good man had his life ruined for far less than Clinton did"

SO, if he is selected, we can probably take that as an indication that pursuing Clinton for her actions with her home brewed server really and truly will not happen...

he's be a good choice

He's be on probation.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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."

Y'all are kidding right?

Are you saying he did not own up to it?

Silly far left drone!

No im not saying that. I'm saying Patraeus showed intent by choosing to disclose classified info to somebody who did not have the clearance. Clinton showed carelessness but no intent

Wrong. Broadwell's clearance was exactly the same as Petraeus.

He was the Director of Central Intelligence.
I think not.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes i agree with you on that and I'm not claiming that Hillary is innocent of all accusations. My simple point, I'll say again, is that those who thought Hillary was unfit to serve because of her mishandling of classified information should hold Patraeus tot the same standards or else they are being partisan hypocrites. Patraeus legally speaking performed more severe offenses than Hillary as laid out in this thread by both historical references and testimony by the investigating body

If Trump does put him up for the job, I can't wait to see who the partisans are that comes out against Trump for hiring Petreaus. Remember too that Hillary lied to the US Congress under oath several times, and even destroyed evidence after it was subpoenaed by them.

If people were truly objective then the Hillary supporters that excused her behavior should also excuse Petraeus, and the Trump supporters that wanted Hillary disqualified from running should not support Petraeus. If he is nominated there will be hypocrisy on both sides.

This is true, but what do you want to bet it will be the exact opposite?

I think many on the left will focus on the hypocrisy of the Right and use the rhetoric they used agaist Hillary against them. They will have a point

Wait a minute, they (who voted for Hillary) will be focusing on the hypocrisy of the right?

You don't call "lock her up" for mishandling classified info, to allow the General who was convicted and plead guilty of mishandling classified info serve as sec of state, hypocrisy? It fits the definition