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

[Slade3200]

Haha. And you think intent to hide classified information is more serious than intentionally giving classified information to somebody who does not have clearance?? You really are low IQ

I think both are equally deplorable. Do you honestly believe Hillary shouldn't be guilty of even a misdemeanor in her handling of classified material?

I believe the FBI when they say it wasn't criminal. I'd also support her facing appropriate consequences if she were still working in the state department. Although It was grossly overblown during the election, it had validity for concern.
Ultimately it cost her the election so I don't think she could pay a higher price at this point

 

[Divine Wind]

If I'm trying to look at anything other than the chick I'm gay. Or, because I'm not in it with her. Which answer you want?

Your sexual preference is your own choice. God Bless America!

The truth would be nice.

 

[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 Patraeus legally speaking performed more severe offenses than Hillary as laid out in this thread by both historical references and testimony by the investigating body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.

 

[Divine Wind]

I believe the FBI when they say it wasn't criminal. I'd also support her facing appropriate consequences if she were still working in the state department. Although It was grossly overblown during the election, it had validity for concern.
Ultimately it cost her the election so I don't think she could pay a higher price at this point

Again, the OJ example. What Comey actually said was he didn't find enough evidence worth charging.

Do you honestly believe Hillary R. Clinton has been forthright and completely honest about this matter? Why do you think she exclusively used a private email system instead of activating and using her government system just like every other official? Why do you think she is so special?

 

[Slade3200]

petraeus gave thousands of classified documents to a person not cleared to have them, 300 marked SECRET documents, he allowed her to copy, he stored these classified secret and compartmental TOP SECRET documents in his unlocked desk drawer and gave massive amounts of secret and top secret docs to her.

Hillary had 107 emails out of 50,000 emails on her server, that were classified and only 7 of those were top secret...she gave them or handed them over to no one, she did not remove them from their proper place, her staff had top secret clearance who participated in them...and ZERO were stolen or hacked.
OOPS I MEAN, KOCH has been sold a bill of goods by HIS beloved FAUX media hacks

Not according to the New York Post:

Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials | New York Post

I believe the words and actions of the FBI over news reports. If they didn't find cause to prosecute them I believe they have good reason for that. They do in fact have more info than the washing post and political pundits.

 

[Slade3200]

I believe the FBI when they say it wasn't criminal. I'd also support her facing appropriate consequences if she were still working in the state department. Although It was grossly overblown during the election, it had validity for concern.
Ultimately it cost her the election so I don't think she could pay a higher price at this point

Again, the OJ example. What Comey actually said was he didn't find enough evidence worth charging.

Do you honestly believe Hillary R. Clinton has been forthright and completely honest about this matter? Why do you think she exclusively used a private email system instead of activating and using her government system just like every other official? Why do you think she is so special?

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

 

[Lewdog]

I believe the FBI when they say it wasn't criminal. I'd also support her facing appropriate consequences if she were still working in the state department. Although It was grossly overblown during the election, it had validity for concern.
Ultimately it cost her the election so I don't think she could pay a higher price at this point

Again, the OJ example. What Comey actually said was he didn't find enough evidence worth charging.

Do you honestly believe Hillary R. Clinton has been forthright and completely honest about this matter? Why do you think she exclusively used a private email system instead of activating and using her government system just like every other official? Why do you think she is so special?

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

Not to mention this thread is about Petraeus... who plead guilty to his crime, and the government gave him a free pass. So a guy that should be in jail... might end up getting the third highest ranking job in the country. A guy that put American lives at risk by sharing highly classified information with someone not qualified to see it.

If he had to apply for Top Secret clearance, he couldn't pass.

 

[HenryBHough]

An appointment affirming the quality of the choice for SecState made by Regime Obama.

How could any Democrat object?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

petraeus gave thousands of classified documents to a person not cleared to have them, 300 marked SECRET documents, he allowed her to copy, he stored these classified secret and compartmental TOP SECRET documents in his unlocked desk drawer and gave massive amounts of secret and top secret docs to her.

Hillary had 107 emails out of 50,000 emails on her server, that were classified and only 7 of those were top secret...she gave them or handed them over to no one, she did not remove them from their proper place, her staff had top secret clearance who participated in them...and ZERO were stolen or hacked.
OOPS I MEAN, KOCH has been sold a bill of goods by HIS beloved FAUX media hacks

Not according to the New York Post:

Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials | New York Post

I believe the words and actions of the FBI over news reports. If they didn't find cause to prosecute them I believe they have good reason for that. They do in fact have more info than the washing post and political pundits.

Well...... only one of two things took place here: either this report is a lie, or Comey overlooked this exchange between Hillary and her housekeeper. Which one is it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

No doubt about hypocrisy on both sides. Still, I have no problem nominating someone who paid for their mistakes over a person who hasn't paid for their mistakes, but continues to deny they made any mistakes.

 

[Lewdog]

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?

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.

 

[Kosh]

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.

No doubt about hypocrisy on both sides. Still, I have no problem nominating someone who paid for their mistakes over a person who hasn't paid for their mistakes, but continues to deny they made any mistakes.

Like the OP and them supporting Hilary as a viable candidate for President!

 

[Lewdog]

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.

No doubt about hypocrisy on both sides. Still, I have no problem nominating someone who paid for their mistakes over a person who hasn't paid for their mistakes, but continues to deny they made any mistakes.

So you want a guy that can't get Top Secret Clearance, that has shown he doesn't have the ability to avoid being tempted into passing along Highly Classified material, as the third highest post in the country?

 

[yiostheoy]

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

I like the General and I think he is brilliant.

I doubt that the sex scandal would interfere with his duties because compared with the French he is still the equivalent of a school boy.

He would make a better Sec State than any of Mr. Trump's other candidates.

 

[Divine Wind]

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?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you want a guy that can't get Top Secret Clearance, that has shown he doesn't have the ability to avoid being tempted into passing along Highly Classified material, as the third highest post in the country?

And who did you vote for President again???????

 

[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?

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

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.

 

[Slade3200]

I believe the FBI when they say it wasn't criminal. I'd also support her facing appropriate consequences if she were still working in the state department. Although It was grossly overblown during the election, it had validity for concern.
Ultimately it cost her the election so I don't think she could pay a higher price at this point

Again, the OJ example. What Comey actually said was he didn't find enough evidence worth charging.

Do you honestly believe Hillary R. Clinton has been forthright and completely honest about this matter? Why do you think she exclusively used a private email system instead of activating and using her government system just like every other official? Why do you think she is so special?

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

Not to mention this thread is about Petraeus... who plead guilty to his crime, and the government gave him a free pass. So a guy that should be in jail... might end up getting the third highest ranking job in the country. A guy that put American lives at risk by sharing highly classified information with someone not qualified to see it.

If he had to apply for Top Secret clearance, he couldn't pass.

Props for being consistent on both sides