Petraeus Shared Top Secret Info With Reporters

[Juan de Fuca]

I am who I said I was and I explained to Vigilante that I do not put personal information on message boards. Professionals just need your birthdate and a zip code to establish your address and a plethora of personal information. I served in the Army and graduated from OCS at Ft Sill, I served with the 9th Infantry Division in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam.

So why did you need to lie about being a combat vet who was born two years after the U.S. left Vietnam?

I explained that I lied on the birth date you are required to fill at registration, and explained that people who put accurate information put themselves at risk by doing so. A professional can take just your date of birth, and a zip and find your address. They can then harvest more and more info until they can rob you blind even finding when you are gone from reading social media posts. My actual birthdate is closer to what you would expect by being in Vietnam in 1968.

 

[williepete]

I explained that I lied on the birth date you are required to fill at registration

Fair enough. You aroused my curiosity enough to check my own profile. No birth date is there nor was one needed when I signed up. Maybe that's changed but there's still a choice not to post one. It's not required.

This site is full of fakes and paid shills. They tend to stand out.

Just say'in.

 

[williepete]

I served in the Army and graduated from OCS at Ft Sill,

OCS HONOR CODE
An Officer Candidate will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.

Seems some lessons are forgotten.

I explained that I lied on the birth date you are required to fill at registration,

Juan de Fuca,

There are a lot of Vets on this board. And there are also a lot of paid shills, socks and fakes on this board. May I point out that as a new guy, you've gotten off on the wrong foot. Vets may have a hard time giving your posts credibility after this rocky start.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

I served in the Army and graduated from OCS at Ft Sill,

OCS HONOR CODE
An Officer Candidate will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.

Seems some lessons are forgotten.

I explained that I lied on the birth date you are required to fill at registration,

Juan de Fuca,

There are a lot of Vets on this board. And there are also a lot of paid shills, socks and fakes on this board. May I point out that as a new guy, you've gotten off on the wrong foot. Vets may have a hard time giving your posts credibility after this rocky start.

I deliberately lied to protect my identity and I didn't expect to be savaged for convenience by a fellow vet. I offered to send my DD214 to someone I trusted and found it was easier for that person to deconstruct me to further an argument than to accept the docs I was willing to show. I've moved past that and understand that this is just a message board, the idea that I have to prove myself to a bunch of anonymous posters is silly. If it gets that bad I'll change identities or go somewhere else.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I served in the Army and graduated from OCS at Ft Sill,

OCS HONOR CODE
An Officer Candidate will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.

Seems some lessons are forgotten.

I explained that I lied on the birth date you are required to fill at registration,

Juan de Fuca,

There are a lot of Vets on this board. And there are also a lot of paid shills, socks and fakes on this board. May I point out that as a new guy, you've gotten off on the wrong foot. Vets may have a hard time giving your posts credibility after this rocky start.

I deliberately lied to protect my identity and I didn't expect to be savaged for convenience by a fellow vet. I offered to send my DD214 to someone I trusted and found it was easier for that person to deconstruct me to further an argument than to accept the docs I was willing to show. I've moved past that and understand that this is just a message board, the idea that I have to prove myself to a bunch of anonymous posters is silly. If it gets that bad I'll change identities or go somewhere else.

I'm confused , first you said you won't give out personal information on a message board, then you say you offered to send someone your DD214 :shrug:

Whatever, I won't question your service, I have no idea if you served or not. I will however question whether you have held a security clearance or not, because I most certainly have, for most of my adult life in fact, and although when I first received mine email was unheard of, the principle was the same and certainly the FBI makes it VERY clear to everyone who receives a security clearance what their responsibilities are.

Beginning with, it is YOUR responsibility to recognize material that pertains to national security and treat it as classified whether it has been "officially" classified or not. This becomes more important the higher up the food chain you get, because as Sec State, Clinton no doubt originated several emails that contained sensitive material that would be classified . As a person with security clearance , you don't get to say "well this hasn't been classified yet, so no need to treat it as classified" and that is EXACTLY what Clinton is trying to do.

Also, if you had a security clearance you would know that SENDING a classified document through a private server (as Clinton did SEVERAL hundred times (at least) is a crime, but RECEIVING a classified document (as is all the IG report claims Powell did) is NOT a crime. How could that POSSIBLY be a crime? You have ZERO control over what you receive in your inbox. If receiving a classified email were a crime, Obama could simply send Trump a a classified email and then have him arrested, as an example.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

That offer was because I was being attacked and I wanted to assure the writer that I was genuine. I didn't realize until a short time later that it wasn't the information they wanted it was the opportunity to deconstruct me through a falsehood that I was responsible for, but was merely trying to protect my identity. It was then that it dawned on me that this is a message board, where the next person you talk to could be anything from a serial killer, to a rapist, to a child molester, and unless you want to unravel your whole life to a stranger it is a useless endeavor. No one gets superiority over another without revealing their persona and since that isn't likely to happen we remain anonymous and mostly respectful.

My experience was quite different from yours although security classification was something not to be fooled with even then. NOFORN, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, documents were all located in a central depository and had to be signed out. There was no limit placed on those documents but you were responsible for each one. Our Agency was small, I think there were 70 officers all field grade or above, and maybe 10 enlisted personnel none lower than sergeant. We were located in a two story building with a full basement the size of a bank building. TOP SECRET docs were located in what we called the NATO room for obvious reasons. It had a tumbler dial lock and was wired directly to the MP Post on base there were maybe thirty file cabinets all high security level, lockable. It had a conference table for six and individual lighting. There were two levels of security entering the building, one through an electric door and then a security desk where your ID was authenticated. General officers, high ranking Pentagon personnel and DOD big wigs were an everyday thing. The agency has been closed and absorbed for many years.

We originated many documents by nature of our work and utilized couriers to move documents outside the agency. We did not use fax or email since it didn't exist in 1970, we did have a computer but it took up most of the basement so that made things much easier for us.

As I understand the Clinton email problem, I read that she received (for example) an email describing a current event, we can all agree that is not a classification event, but became classified later due to other events involving it, this is what happened to Powell also. I don't know if that's true, but it certainly attempts to explain the problem at State. Documents sent without a header were a violation of security and I haven't read anything that helps me identify who was responsible for that.

Edit to Add: I seem to remember there was a 10 document limit on SECRET, but the other classifications had no limit but you were responsible for each one. Lord have mercy on you if you left even a CONFIDENTIAL in a non secure area.

 

[whitehall]

When will lefties learn that it's not a good defense to say "the other guy did it" and he only got six months.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

When will lefties learn that it's not a good defense to say "the other guy did it" and he only got six months.

What Petraeus did was far more serious and demonstrates how the people in power take care of each other.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

When will lefties learn that it's not a good defense to say "the other guy did it" and he only got six months.

What Petraeus did was far more serious and demonstrates how the people in power take care of each other.

No, what Patreus did was not worse than what Hillary did.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

When will lefties learn that it's not a good defense to say "the other guy did it" and he only got six months.

What Petraeus did was far more serious and demonstrates how the people in power take care of each other.

No, what Patreus did was not worse than what Hillary did.

Oh, I couldn't disagree more, as does the man who prosecuted Petraeus.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeusrecorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.


These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States.

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as “top secret” and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.

Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...versy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

 

[Fair&Balanced]

When will lefties learn that it's not a good defense to say "the other guy did it" and he only got six months.

What Petraeus did was far more serious and demonstrates how the people in power take care of each other.

No, what Patreus did was not worse than what Hillary did.

Oh, I couldn't disagree more, as does the man who prosecuted Petraeus.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeusrecorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.


These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States.

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as “top secret” and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.

Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly. Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

OF COURSE you disagree. You're a partisan who must argue that what Hillary didn't wasn't so bad after all.

Also, Clinton IS IN FACT being investigated for knowingly sending classified material improperly. Otherwise known as espionage.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?

Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.

The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."


Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters

A better question for you smug self is that how petrais was punished at all and Hillary hasn't.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

When will lefties learn that it's not a good defense to say "the other guy did it" and he only got six months.

What Petraeus did was far more serious and demonstrates how the people in power take care of each other.

No, what Patreus did was not worse than what Hillary did.

Oh, I couldn't disagree more, as does the man who prosecuted Petraeus.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeusrecorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.


These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States.

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as “top secret” and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.

Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly. Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

OF COURSE you disagree. You're a partisan who must argue that what Hillary didn't wasn't so bad after all.

Also, Clinton IS IN FACT being investigated for knowingly sending classified material improperly. Otherwise known as espionage.

The former Attorney General of the United States a Republican, is the one saying it. I'm sorry that you're so partisan you can't consider his words.

You need a lot more information before you can alledge an espionage charge. As far as I know no one is considering that and "bad faith" and "intent", the elements necessary for any espionage prosecution, has to deliberately try to harm the United States, is a stretch even for the worst partisan. If I were you, I would reassess my case and try to look it at it without so much precondemnation.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

So why did he only get charged with a misdemeanor? and how do you charge Hillary Clinton for anything more serious than a misdemeanor if she is found to have broken security laws?

Protecting law breaking cows is wrong and the people who allowed it should be exposed.

The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.
Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."
Story Continued Below
"There is a recorded conversation between Petraeus and, inter alia, Washington Post reporters, which, based on the information and belief of your affiant, occurred in or about March 2011," Special Agent Diane Wehner wrote. "In the conversation, Petraeus stated, 'I would really love to be on background as a senior military officer.' Later in the recording, Petraeus discusses sensitive military campaigns and operations, some of which, on the basis of a preliminary review ... is believed to contain classified information, including information at the Top Secret level."


Read more: FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters

A better question for you smug self is that how petrais was punished at all and Hillary hasn't.

Duh, Hillary is being investigated, there is no charge pending, no trial, or vindication yet. Petraeus plead guilty, there was no trial.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

When will lefties learn that it's not a good defense to say "the other guy did it" and he only got six months.

What Petraeus did was far more serious and demonstrates how the people in power take care of each other.

No, what Patreus did was not worse than what Hillary did.

Oh, I couldn't disagree more, as does the man who prosecuted Petraeus.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeusrecorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.


These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States.

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as “top secret” and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.

Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly. Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

OF COURSE you disagree. You're a partisan who must argue that what Hillary didn't wasn't so bad after all.

Also, Clinton IS IN FACT being investigated for knowingly sending classified material improperly. Otherwise known as espionage.

The former Attorney General of the United States a Republican, is the one saying it. I'm sorry that you're so partisan you can't consider his words.

You need a lot more information before you can alledge an espionage charge. As far as I know no one is considering that and "bad faith" and "intent", the elements necessary for any espionage prosecution, has to deliberately try to harm the United States, is a stretch even for the worst partisan. If I were you, I would reassess my case and try to look it at it without so much precondemnation.

Neither bad faith, NOR intent are required for espionage. And in fact the FBI themselves make that QUITE clear to you when they grant you a security clearance. I'm going to go ahead and say that you are lying about your past now.

And I'm not sure how me saying Patreus and Clinton are BOTH guilty of such is being partisan.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

What Petraeus did was far more serious and demonstrates how the people in power take care of each other.

No, what Patreus did was not worse than what Hillary did.

Oh, I couldn't disagree more, as does the man who prosecuted Petraeus.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeusrecorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.


These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States.

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as “top secret” and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.

Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly. Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

OF COURSE you disagree. You're a partisan who must argue that what Hillary didn't wasn't so bad after all.

Also, Clinton IS IN FACT being investigated for knowingly sending classified material improperly. Otherwise known as espionage.

The former Attorney General of the United States a Republican, is the one saying it. I'm sorry that you're so partisan you can't consider his words.

You need a lot more information before you can alledge an espionage charge. As far as I know no one is considering that and "bad faith" and "intent", the elements necessary for any espionage prosecution, has to deliberately try to harm the United States, is a stretch even for the worst partisan. If I were you, I would reassess my case and try to look it at it without so much precondemnation.

Neither bad faith, NOR intent are required for espionage. And in fact the FBI themselves make that QUITE clear to you when they grant you a security clearance. I'm going to go ahead and say that you are lying about your past now.

And I'm not sure how me saying Patreus and Clinton are BOTH guilty of such is being partisan.

The Supreme Court ruled in Gorin V United States:

"We find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith."

So the SC disagrees with you. Besides, any idiot who thinks there isn't a very high bar to convict a cabinet member must be an idiot beyond any doubt.

You didn't even consider Mukasey's words, that makes you a partisan.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No, what Patreus did was not worse than what Hillary did.

Oh, I couldn't disagree more, as does the man who prosecuted Petraeus.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeusrecorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.


These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States.

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as “top secret” and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.

Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly. Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

OF COURSE you disagree. You're a partisan who must argue that what Hillary didn't wasn't so bad after all.

Also, Clinton IS IN FACT being investigated for knowingly sending classified material improperly. Otherwise known as espionage.

The former Attorney General of the United States a Republican, is the one saying it. I'm sorry that you're so partisan you can't consider his words.

You need a lot more information before you can alledge an espionage charge. As far as I know no one is considering that and "bad faith" and "intent", the elements necessary for any espionage prosecution, has to deliberately try to harm the United States, is a stretch even for the worst partisan. If I were you, I would reassess my case and try to look it at it without so much precondemnation.

Neither bad faith, NOR intent are required for espionage. And in fact the FBI themselves make that QUITE clear to you when they grant you a security clearance. I'm going to go ahead and say that you are lying about your past now.

And I'm not sure how me saying Patreus and Clinton are BOTH guilty of such is being partisan.

The Supreme Court ruled in Gorin V United States:

"We find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith."

So the SC disagrees with you. Besides, any idiot who thinks there isn't a very high bar to convict a cabinet member must be an idiot beyond any doubt.

You didn't even consider Mukasey's words, that makes you a partisan.

No, SCOTUS disagreed with me if this were 1941. Which it isn't.

The law has changed since then, but again since you are LYING about having held a security clearance, you weren't aware.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.



No intent required. Gross negligence can result in being charged with a crime, and often is.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Gorin v U.S. still stands as law my friend. U.S.793 has only been ruled on by lower courts. Obviously you are well versed on security handling but an ignorant fuck as to how the law is applied.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Gorin v U.S. still stands as law my friend. U.S.793 has only been ruled on by lower courts. Obviously you are well versed on security handling but an ignorant fuck as to how the law is applied.

A law is the law UNLESS a Court says it isn't. That means that Hillary broke the fucking law. Admit that at least. Then, if you like, we can debate whether negligence should be illegal.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Gorin v U.S. still stands as law my friend. U.S.793 has only been ruled on by lower courts. Obviously you are well versed on security handling but an ignorant fuck as to how the law is applied.

A law is the law UNLESS a Court says it isn't. That means that Hillary broke the fucking law. Admit that at least. Then, if you like, we can debate whether negligence should be illegal.

That is how the SC interpreted the law in Gorin. That law applies now and applies to prosecutions under 793, until this or another court changes it.

She hasn't been charged with anything yet. The very idea of deciding someone is guilty before a trial goes against every element of fairness and the rule of innocent until proven guilty. I find it rather Un American that you even suggest it.