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

[Timmy]

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 .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Emails that can be found on the state department email. You know they go two ways right ?

Was Hillary even found in contempt for not turning shit over ? Nope .

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said she returned all email back to the state department, was that true?
Comey: No that is not true, we found thousands of emails that were not turned over to the state department:

 

[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.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

or Justice.

 

[Eaglewings]

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.

Ray it was a daily thing on this message board that dragged Hillary through hell and back, but will be ok if Petreaus gets in..

Anytime there is a recount thread they bring up the emails...

I like Petreaus, I even got to meet him once ...he would be a good SS ...

 

[Lewdog]

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.

or Justice.

So when you beat your wife, do you think you should still have a right to own a gun? Though it is a felony... and a guy caught writing a bad check over $500 and gets a felony still can own a gun?

 

[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

 

[Divine Wind]

So when you beat your wife, do you think you should still have a right to own a gun? Though it is a felony... and a guy caught writing a bad check over $500 and gets a felony still can own a gun?

I don't beat my wife, so your question is moot. When you promise to be a dick and troll me, are you guilty of lying and dishonesty?

 

[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.

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?

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

 

[Lewdog]

So when you beat your wife, do you think you should still have a right to own a gun? Though it is a felony... and a guy caught writing a bad check over $500 and gets a felony still can own a gun?

I don't beat my wife, so your question is moot. When you promise to be a dick and troll me, are you guilty of lying and dishonesty?

So you either don't understand different categories of laws or you refuse to accept it because it goes against your argument. Gotcha. Where did I promise to be a dick to you and troll you?

 

[Care4all]

....Hillary had 107 emails out of 50,000 emails on her server, that were classified and only 7 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.

you've been sold a bill of goods by your beloved FAUX media hacks

Not quite correct since she destroyed 30,000 emails. The numbers you quoted are the ones investigators know about.

You have no proof she wasn't hacked. It was an unsecure server and, as SoS, she would obviously be a target. Only the most inept intelligence agency wouldn't take a shot at hacking into her account.

It's the LAW that govt employees NOT SEND any personal emails to be govt archived...they must ONLY send govt documents or govt emails to be archived. Hillary deleted her personal emails....she followed the RULES & LAW.

Yes, we do have PROOF that she was NOT hacked...the FBI found NO HACKS....

IT'S YOU who has no proof that she was hacked....

not one, zip, zero emails from her server has showed up on wikileaks, or anywhere that was not obtained thru the FOIA requests that the state dept released....not a one!

Correct, I have no proof she wasn't hacked. Now tell me I should trust someone who is so paranoid and callous that they pass classified information over an unsecure email system because they don't trust the government system. Or, IMHO, wanted to cover their tracks since, as Hillary well knows since she helped pass the law, that all email used on a government system must be archived.

There is no government CLASSIFIED email system.... top SECRET and secret is stored on a server that has no internet /email access.... She and her staff were discussing information a source, OUTSIDE of the government, gave them.... it so happened that this info, from their source, ( Syd Blumenthal), was also gathered by our intelligence community simultaneously, and they classified it top secret....that's why None of the top SECRET emails had Classified markings and her staff did not know it was top secret.... they didn't believe it was top SECRET stuff because they got the info from a public source, a non Gvt source and if he could find these things out from his public sources, HOW could it be top secret?

If HILLARY had used the government email server and gotten a user id on the State.gov email her staffers used in the state dept, it too was an UNCLASSIFIED email system.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

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.

 

[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

 

[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.

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.

She has admitted to the mistake many times. The FBI didn't recommend criminal prosecution. So what do you want Clinton to do? Beg the DOJ to punish her?

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

 

[Timmy]

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.

 

[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?

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?

 

[Timmy]

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 ?

 

[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

Timmy is far from being a racist..

 

[Divine Wind]

She has admitted to the mistake many times. The FBI didn't recommend criminal prosecution. So what do you want Clinton to do? Beg the DOJ to punish her?

While your support and dedication to Hillary is commendable, there's a reason why many on the Left, much less the Right, don't trust her. Why do you think that is? Bad rap? She's just misunderstood?