As Petraeus Meets With Trump, Word Of A New Investigation Is Leaked
Today David Petraeus met with Donald Trump regarding a possible Secretary of State position. After Trump focused heavily on Hillary Clinton’s irresponsible and (to most onlookers) criminal mishandling of classified information as Secretary of State, it’s more than a little bizarre that Trump would consider placing in the same position someone who was actually convicted of the crime for which Hillary Clinton was only investigated. Even if you think Petraeus is a smart guy who might do a good job — and I do — the comparison to Hillary Clinton is a tough mental hurdle to surmount.
And now, with word of a new investigation related to the Petraeus scandal breaking today, it’s getting tougher still:
The Defense Department is conducting a leaks investigation related to the sex scandal that led to the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus, The Associated Press confirmed Monday, the same day Petraeus was meeting with President-elect Donald Trump in New York.
Petraeus, who could be in line for a Cabinet nomination, arrived at Trump Tower in early afternoon. He walked in without taking any questions from reporters.
A U.S. official told the AP that investigators are trying to determine who leaked personal information about Paula Broadwell, the woman whose affair with Petraeus led to criminal charges against him and his resignation. The information concerned the status of her security clearance, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Disclosure of the Broadwell information without official permission would have been a violation of federal criminal law.
The latest twist in the case could complicate Petraeus’ prospects of obtaining a Cabinet position in the Trump administration, resurfacing details of the extramarital affair and FBI investigation that ended his career at the CIA and tarnished the reputation of the retired four-star general.
I find it bitterly amusing that the existence of the investigation into a possible leak was . . . leaked. This leak feels very pointed, somehow.
It also throws a new monkey wrench into the dramatic narrative arc of The Trump Transition Show, which (as I noted earlier today) is beginning to resemble a TV reality show.
Vice-President Pence tells us there are important announcements tomorrow! Will the Secretary of State position be one of them?? Or is this just a dramatic head fake??? There’s only one way to find out!!! Tune in tomorrow for the exciting conclusion!!!! (Or not!!!!!)
UPDATE: I promise I wrote this post before I saw this post by Allahpundit, which also mocks the TV-style drama of the situation. Great minds think alike . . . and sometimes, so does mine.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
The information concerned the status of her security clearance, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.
from the wiki ~~~
Question: How could David Petraeus be accused of mishandling classified documents when both he and Paula Broadwell were both authorized with the necessary clearances to see them?
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:27 pmIf screwing the General is grounds for revoking security clearance – that would exclude the entire Obama admin.
They screwed many generals.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:31 pm@papertiger:How could David Petraeus be accused of mishandling classified documents when both he and Paula Broadwell were both authorized with the necessary clearances to see them?
Need-to-know. Clearance and access are not the same thing:
Under need-to-know restrictions, even if one has all the necessary official approvals (such as a security clearance) to access certain information, one would not be given access to such information, or read into a clandestine operation, unless one has a specific need to know; that is, access to the information must be necessary for the conduct of one’s official duties.
As with most security mechanisms, the aim is to make it difficult for unauthorized access to occur, without inconveniencing legitimate access. Need-to-know also aims to discourage “browsing” of sensitive material by limiting access to the smallest possible number of people.
And of course, he pled guilty and admitted he should not have done it, in his statement.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:37 pmHeck. They aren’t done screwing generals yet.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:37 pmTo receive classified material, one must meet two criteria: (1) appropriate clearance and (2) a need to know. Having a top secret clearance does not give one access to all materials classified as top secret or below.
howard johnson (264d5d) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:40 pm@papertiger: You know, the answers to all of your questions on this matter have been answered by people just like you who bothered to use the Google to find out.
If you had really wanted to know the answer, you would have done the same, and found out.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:40 pmA little knowledge is a dangerous thing, papertiger. A security clearance allows you to see the information you need to see in order to do your job, and no more than that. It’s not a license to access any classified information you want to.
nk (dbc370) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:40 pmBroadwell had a need to know. She was writing the book.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:41 pmOhmigosh, I really do type too slow for the internet.
nk (dbc370) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:42 pm@papertiger: Of course adultery is covered under Article 134; Petraeus could have been in trouble for that (maybe he was), but that is an entirely separate issue.
He was not convicted of mishandling classified information because he was having an affair. He was convicted of mishandling classified information because he was mishandling classified information. The affair is simply how he got caught–Broadwell started sending creepy emails to a lady she thought was around Petraeus too much, and the military investigated and found the two were sharing email addresses, and it spiraled out from there.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:45 pmWell the press has shown they dint care about effective foreign policy so give them a shoW, the slobbering over the wandering coma, fir instance. Verges on necrophilia
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:45 pm@papertiger:She was writing the book.
Since when is it ok to publish classified information in a book? And where did he get the authority to make the decision? He didn’t. He did something wrong which he admitted to in court and he knew it was wrong at the time and he said so in his emails to her.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:46 pmGabriel
I had no idea until just now with this post by Pat that
A) Paula Broadwell held a security clearance
B) Was a security officer, specially trained for the handling of sensitive documents
or
C) Was a colonel in the US Army assigned to overseas security.
Even factoring the no tell motel boogie woogie, it doesn’t add up to mishandling state secrets.
I only point at things that obviously don’t sum.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:48 pm@papertiger:I only point at things that obviously don’t sum.
Because you are making no effort to learn.
In the time it took you to write that comment, I located the the plea agreement that lays out what he did wrong, that he knew it was wrong, that he lied about it, and that he pled guilty to it.
Why didn’t you do that?
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:53 pm“It’s ok if Trump does it.”
nk (dbc370) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:54 pmHere’s another thing.
If you’re the incumbent who has spent every waking minute of the last four years trying your damnest to destroy or debase every agency of the government you lead, and you are looking to silence one of the few credible voices remaining so as to fool the public into voting for you one more time,
would you assign that guy , fresh off a grueling tour of duty in Afghanistan, the comely homecoming queen as his personal biographer, hoping that nature would take it’s course?
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:00 pmPossibly, btw I forgot where I read that the likely leaker was nine other than out going dhs head Johnson, then did counsel
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:02 pm@papertiger: You won’t even accept Petraeus’s own statements on the matter?
Ok, fine, it’s a conspiracy theory. Then you have to accept that Petraeus is in on it and is actively covering it up.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:04 pmBut as with the body bomber leak plot, they’ll find some pentagon cipher clerk.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:06 pmIt may have been the treehouse back in July 2015.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:09 pm@papertiger: Either you are trolling me, or just making this up as you go. Petraeus met Broadwell in 2006. Broadwell started her cyberstalking in 2011. The FBI started investigating in May 2012. The Benghazi attack was in September 2012. Is there a time machine too?
Maybe the time machine is what they are covering up.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:11 pmSo if they just subpoenaed jehs emails and call roster. But then the gig would be up.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:14 pm@papertiger: Page 17 of the pdf I linked to shows that Petraeus told Broadwell the books had classified code word material in August 2011. At that time he told her she could read them, he took them to some house where she was staying, which he was not authorized to do. He left them there for a week. Then he took them to his house, which he was not authorized to do either.
A freakin’ year before Benghazi.
He lied to the FBI about it in October 2012, after the Benghazi attack.
So was Petraeus in on the conspiracy, or is there a time machine?
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:16 pmGabriel says the guy who got run over by the truck knowingly abetted the crime by being in the way.
Co conspirator. In cahoots. You can tell by the treadmarks on his back.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:17 pmThis was all part of the purge that involved mccrystal, mattis and Lynn, and put general Allen on ice
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:18 pm@papertiger:Gabriel says the guy who got run over by the truck knowingly abetted the crime by being in the way.
Time machine it is then. You might be a troll, or you might be a loon, but Poe’s Law tells me it makes no difference.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:19 pmInteresting the investigation tracks back tie may, when a o ce in a lifetime agent in Ac was burned by the powers that be.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 8:29 pm“More relative than this—the play’s the thing…” – Hamlet, William Shakespeare
Always. With Trump.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/28/2016 @ 9:37 pmGabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:45 pm
He was convicted of mishandling classified information, because the terrorist moles at the CIA discovered he was having an affair, but only by listening to the contents of something they were not supposed to, because they were only supposed to check his communications from CIA headquarters for security breaches, and there were none, and otherwise they were not supposed to say anything to anyone.
So they initiated a false complaint by Jill Kelley, maybe using some foreign diplomats as the intermediary, that’s what I think, against Paula Broadwell, the woman he was having an affair with. False because there is no doubt it was completely unfounded and Paula Broadwell did not send the e-mails she was accused of sending. Although in the end, the public announcements tread lightly on the fact that she was almost certainly spoofed at least. Paula Broadwell did admit to sending some emails about Jill Kelley to Gen. John Allen that desxcirbed her as a security risk because she hosting a dinner with “several senior foreign intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials,” as well as another one to Jill Kelley’s husband (but not the ones, supposedly harassing Jill Kelley, that formed the basis for the investigation)
This invesigation gave the FBI cause to look though Paula Broadwell’s and later David Petraeus’ e-mails, and also that of the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, John R. Allen. The search through the emails that General John R. Allen exchanged with Jill Kelley was actually illegal, or at least Jill Kelley sued over that. She also sued the U.S. government for violating her privacy rights by leaking her name to the media but later dropped that case. I think she just didn’t want people looking too closely into what was going on because there are some important secrets there with her, and not purely personal ones, but probably involves, corruption, attempted corruption, and/or espionage.
My own personal opinion is that Paula Broadwell never sent any bad message to Jill Kelley and that Jill Kelley only claimed so because it was arranged with her for her to start an investigation. Jill Kelley was close to some FBI agents and was able to get an investigation started that, at least initially, went the way she wanted it to go.
Going through Paula Broadwell’s and/or David Petraeus’ e-mails revealed the affair, and he resigned as head of the CIA, even though President Obama told him it was not necessary and he didn’t want him to, and wanted him to stay, but Obama wasn’t firm enough about keeping him.
So what the CIA did in circulating false intelligence and crafting the talking points about Benghazi never got exposed – not even criticized as a mistake, but rather characterized as something anybody would have done.
Now, once there was an investigation of Petraeus, it got discovered that he had given Paula Broadwell custody of his notes or records, which were classified. I’m not sure how they were discovered. Maybe Paula Broadwell had copies. She had a security clearance but no need to know. She did not intend to reveal anything without getting clearance. Of course the biography itself was unnecessary and just a hagiography.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/politics/jill-kelley-david-petraeus-john-allen/
The type of violation of security regulations that Petraeus did was probably rather common – it’s just that everything he did got looked into.
Not true! She was never prosecuted for them. Those emails were, in my opinion, either spoofed or invented by Jill Kelley. It was the method used to get the FBI to look into her emails so they could discover the affair. Suing to get discovery is, by a way, a known Saudi tactic. This would be very easy to think of.
As planned by the moles in the CIA or by their handlers.
Jill Kelley was so close to foreign diplomats, she tried to claim her home was protected because it was some kind of a foreign legation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jill-kelley-asks-diplomatic-protection-article-1.1201783
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 9:43 pmGabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:46 pm
The book would have been sent to the Pentagon for clearance and possible declassification of anything still classified. That’s how these things are done. The problem was only that he didn’t write the book himself.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 9:47 pm@Sammy: Don’t go down the rabbit hole with the others.
Petraeus confessed in his plea agreement to concealing the books from his DOD historian, leaving them in an insecure unauthorized location for Broadwell to peruse for about a week, then taking them to his own house, another insecure unauthorized location. When questioned by the FBI about them he lied.
He knew he was not allowed to do it and he knew he was lying to the FBI.
I already linked to the plea agreement.
If this is some kind of conspiracy, Petraeus is participating in it. But it is probably not ay kind of conspiracy.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 9:54 pm@Sammy:I’m an honorary consul general
My 4 year old is an honorary firefighter, got a badge and everything. Kelley seems to think honorary consul is more real than that, but I imagine she is confused.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 9:58 pmLook, you guys–Petraeus could not have been set up without a time machine. He was guilty of mishandling classified information long before Benghazi.
So if it’s a conspiracy, he’s cooperating–either voluntarily, which makes him one of the bad guys, or he’s blackmailed into it–which means he’s done something a million times worse than what he’s been convicted of!
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:00 pmHonorary consul, forsooth. Elvis’s DEA badge was every bit as real.
“The narc badge represented some kind of ultimate power to him,” Priscilla Presley would write in her memoir, Elvis and Me. “With the federal narcotics badge, he [believed he] could legally enter any country both wearing guns and carrying any drugs he wished…””I’m on your side,” Elvis told Nixon, adding that he’d been studying the drug culture and Communist brainwashing. Then he asked the president for a badge from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
“Can we get him a badge?” Nixon asked Krogh.
Krogh said he could, and Nixon ordered it done.
Elvis was ecstatic. “In a surprising, spontaneous gesture,” Krogh wrote, Elvis “put his left arm around the President and hugged him.”
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:04 pmNo, I got a visa to Portugal in 1975 through its honorary consul in Chicago. He was an American citizen and a lawyer. Without delving into it, I surmise that it’s a position for places where a regular diplomatic mission and its expense is not needed.
nk (dbc370) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:06 pmGabriel Hanna
So let Petraeus wear an ankle monitor during his tenure as SoS.
Pinandpuller (e56119) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:06 pmThis investigation only helps Petraeus. Petraeus surely didn’t leak that. Enemies of Petraeus leaked that. And if he had enemies, then maybe they may discover that the whole investigation into him was a set-up designed to hurt Petraeus and get him out of the CIA, and the gopvernment.
Especially the CIA because otherwise he might discover and/or fire the foreign intelligence moles in the CIA who, among other things, said the attack in Benghasi was spontaneous (so there’s no need to look for a sponser)
The 1974 Privacy Act.
It can sound like a trivial law, but it’s a serious breach of law to reveal personnel records, although any reporters who get the information don’t seem to treat it that way. It happened with Linda Tripp, too.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:07 pmSomething like what Petraeus did is really pretty common and very few high ranking officials could withstand such scrutiny. The investigation was a set-up to “discover” the affair and then discovered some more.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:09 pmDonald Trump and David Petraeus had a meeting today. David Petraeus described it as Donald Trump giving a tour around the world and seeming to be well informed. Of course, with Donald Trump picking what to tallk about he could seem well informed about everything. He probably actually has been becoming more informed, and he probably learns by chewing things over repeatedly with other people. Donald Trump tweeted he was impressed.
But he is going to meet woth senator Bob Corker and Mitt Romney tomorrow. It was said that Mike pence was the person who recommended Romney. Note: Mike Pence is now head of the transition. It would seem like Giuliani is out of coniseration for this job.
Donald Trump actually could name KT McDonald if he wants to.
Trump continues to talk a lot with President Obama (who by the way is not in the least interested in giving any credence to this election hacking claims – just the opposite)
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:09 pmnk
It’s like the coffee place I used to go to that wasn’t Starbucks but was licensed to sell Starbucks?
Pinandpuller (e56119) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:10 pm@nk:Without delving into it, I surmise that it’s a position for places where a regular diplomatic mission and its expense is not needed.
Seems you are right about that:
As a matter of U.S. policy, honorary consular officers recognized by the U.S. Government are American citizens, or permanent resident aliens who perform consular services on a part-time basis. The limited immunity afforded honorary consular officers is specified in Article 71 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). Such individuals do not enjoy personal inviolability, and may be arrested pending trial if circumstances should otherwise warrant. However, appropriate steps are provided to accord to such officers the protection required by virtue of their official position. In addition, the consular archives and documents of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer are inviolable at all times, and wherever they may be, provided they are kept separate from other papers and documents of a private or commercial nature relating to other activities of an honorary consular officer or persons working with that consular officer.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:11 pmSammy
Are you maybe referring to TV’s KT McFarland?
Pinandpuller (e56119) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:13 pmGabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 9:54 pm
How many high ranking officers get investigated in this way? If no officers kept any records we’d actually have fewer sources of historical information.
Have you ever heard of rhe book “Three Felonies a day?”
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
This whole case was like that. There was no real problem here.
Here’s something about Jill Kelley – the woman who started the whole investigation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tampa-woman-was-hostess-to-the-military-but-had-deep-financial-troubles/2012/11/13/45cea33c-2d19-11e2-9ac2-1c61452669c3_print.html
She was an honorary counsel for South Korea (with no ability to issue visas, apparently) as well so close to some Arab diplomats, which may be more significant for this case.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:19 pm@Sammy:There was no real problem here.
Code word classified intelligence left in a private residence, for a week, not authorized for it, is “no real problem”?
I think you need to read that plea agreement.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:22 pmPinandpuller (e56119) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:13 pm
yes, yes. All I remember is the KT Mc[3 syllables total]a..l..d
She attempted to run for the United states senate in 2006 against Hillary Clinton. That’s when I first heard of her. Donald Trump has appointed her deputy national security adviser. I think maybe she is the one who wrote Donald Trump’s extended statement about the death of Fidel Castro. It was too detailed and informed to be anything Trump or any of his regular aides wrote. Just move her over to State, and the problem of filling the vacancy at Secretay of State is solved.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:26 pmOn or about August 4, 2011, after defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS returned permanently to the United States from Afghanistan, during a conversation, recorded by his biographer, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS stated that the Black Books were “highly classified” and contained “code word” information:
Biographer: By the way, where are your black books? We never went through, ..
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:26 pmPETRAEUS: They’re in a rucksack up there somewhere.
Biographer: Okay… You avoiding that? You gonna look through ’em first?
PETRAEUS: Umm, well, they’re really — 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.
On or about August 27, 2011, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS sent an e-mail to his biographer in which he agreed to provide the Black Books to his biographer.
On or about August 28, 2011, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS delivered the Black Books to a private residence in Washington, D.C. (the “DC Private Residence”), where his biographer was staying during a week-long trip to Washington, D.C. The DC Private Residence was not approved for the storage of classified information.
Thereafter, from on or about August 28, 2011, to on or about September 1, 2011, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS left the Black Books at the DC Private Residence in order to facilitate his biographer’s access to the Black Books and the information contained therein to be used as source material for his biography, titled All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, released by Penguin Press in 2012. No classified information from the Black Books appeared in the aforementioned biography.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:28 pmOn or about September 1, 2011, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS retrieved the Black Books from the DC Private Residence and returned them to his own Arlington, Virginia home (the “PETRAEUS Residence”).
On or about January 3, 2013, a SCIF, which had been installed at the ETRAEUS Residence by the CIA during defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS’s tenure as CIA Director, was closed and de-accredited. The SCIF was subsequently removed on or about February 13, 2013.
On or about April 5, 2013, the FBI executed a court-authorized search warrant at the PETRAEUS Residence and seized the Black Books from an unlocked desk drawer in the first-floor study of the PETRAEUS Residence.
Between in or about August 2011, and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:30 pmDAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his
employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of
the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials
without authority and thereafter intentionally retained such documents and materials at the DC
Private Residence and the PETRAEUS Residence, aware that these locations were unauthorized
for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials.
C’mon guys, this is not “Three Felonies a Day” stuff.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:31 pmThe charge makes it look more serious than it is. For instance, what was the value of this information, by that time, to any enemy, and how likely was the enemy to get it?
You have to remember that the classified information was his own notes.
I first couldn’t find the word “code” in the PDF but on the other hand, I couldn’t find the word “classified” either by searching, yet it is there. I found “code word” but it doesn’t mean code. It means they use a code word to describe what it is. That means it alluded to methods of finding out what the Taliban or others were doing.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:35 pmpapertiger, this is why I’ve lost all respect for you and your fellow Trumpkins.
Yes, it adds up to felony level mishandling of “state secrets.” Petraeus never should have been given that plea that allowed him to stay out of prison. Do you even know what TS/SCI even stands for? Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.
Let me demonstrate. Here’s Hillary!’s NDA.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf
At the top of the page and and the bottom it shows HIllary was read into four compartmets (or Special Access Programs if you want to use the term the presstitutes are throwing around). They are SI, G, TK, and HCS.
I know what three out of those four are. I’m not going to even hint at anything more. But that fourth one, the one I don’t recognize, it would be just as illegal for someone who is read into that compartment to tell or show me the information when I am not read in as it would be to tell or show it to someone who doesn’t have a clearance at all. It just doesn’t matter if I have a TS/SCI clearance. If it were legal for me to know that information I would have been read into that fourth compartment.
Again, this is felony level mishandling of classified information. And if you are stupid enough to try and claim what Hillary! did was worse you’ll have intel people and federal investigators coming out of the woodwork telling you that what Petraeus did was worse. And that’s an argument you will never win.
Also he lied to federal agents. He admitted to it. He had to; they recorded him telling his mistress that he was showing her classified. When they interviewed him he denied showing her classified. They had him dead to rights. That amount of stupidity alone disqualifies him from ever ever holding a government job ever again.
But when it comes to stupidity you’ve got him beat because at least Petraeus was smart enough to know it was illegal to show her that information. So he lied about it. Because she hadn’t been read in because she had no need to know. He could not legally giver her access to that information. Of course, it was illegal for him to retain that information.
Again, a five year felony.
Petraeus copped to a plea to avoid prison time. That was a special deal that you, I, or anyone who wasn’t a four star General and a former CiA director would never get. It wasn’t as sweet as the complete walk Hillary! got, but it was a special deal. But even with this special deal he is disqualified for life from ever having access to classified ever again. Such a person could never pass an SSBI with this on their record. Unless some President is stupid enough or crooked enough (remember “Crooked Hillary!, papertiger?) to appoint them to a position where they’d have access to classified information. Political appointees don’t have to pass background investigations.
This is why I could never be a Trumpkin. To be a Trumpkin requires being a hypocrite, the ability to play the fool, and to defend the indefensible. Like I told Rev. Hoagie on another thread clearly national security means as little to you as it meant to “Crooked Hillary!” That also makes you just as crooked as she is, and now DJT and the congressional Dems. Just by inviting Petraeus up to his office Trump has screwed the congressional Republicans. Because the congressional Dems will just point to that and say obviously what Hillary! did was a big nothingburger because even the GOP president was considering giving a guy who was actually convicted of violating the Espionage Act Hillary!’s old job.
This is weapons-grade stupidity, but predictably there’s nothing Trump can do that’s that will make you lose your man crush on your jock boyfriend. It’s pretty damned disgusting to watch, papertiger, you losing your mind and willingly, eagerly throwing away your dignity. But, like I said, that’s what it takes to be a Trumpkin.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:39 pm@Sammy:For instance, what was the value of this information, by that time, to any enemy, and how likely was the enemy to get it?
Now you’re Hillary Clinton’s lawyer. Listen to yourself.
But the .pdf will tell you. Do I have to call you up and read it to you?
17. During his tenure as Commander of ISAF in Afghanistan, defendant DAVID
HOWELL PETRAEUS maintained bound, five-by-eight-inch notebooks that contained his daily
schedule and classified and unclassified notes he took during official meetings, conferences, and
briefings. The notebooks had black covers and, for identification purposes, defendant DAVID
HOWELL PETRAEUS taped his business card on the front exterior of each notebook. A total of
eight such books (hereinafter the “Black Books”) encompassed the period of defendant DAVID
HOWELL PETRAEUS’s ISAF Command and collectively contained classified information
regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms,
diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security
Council meetings, and defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS’s discussions with the
President of the United States of America.
18. The Black Books contained national defense information, including Top
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:41 pmSecret/SCI and code word information.
It does seem Petraeus was keeping private records of what he had done. So did Casper Weinberger, but he wasn’t indicted for that. Well, Casper Weinberger actually made up his records.
It may not be 3 felonies a day stuff but it is along these lines:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/obama-doj-prosecuted-more-gov-officials-for-leaking-classified-info-than-past-admins-combined
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:41 pm@Sammy: Did you miss it? Here it is again:
“collectively contained classified information
regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms,
diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security
Council meetings, and defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS’s discussions with the
President of the United States of America.”
What is wrong with you? Why won’t you read it? You can do all this research when you feel like it, why won’t you read the thing that Petraeus agrees that he did?
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:44 pmIf those books got into the wrong hands, even a year or three later, it could be a big problem. some of that was dated, but some of it could still be of real use. Of course, there’s also just knowing how the U.S. army works, but nobody tries very hard to keep such basic information secret -there’s too many ways to find out.
If they got into the wrong hands it oould have bene areal problem. But they didn’t, and they weren’t likely to. Paula Broadwell wasn’t the wrong hands. There was no spy who got them or in a position to get them. Except maybe Jill Kelley but Petraeus wasn’t going to show her them, and he didn’t.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:48 pm@Sammy:Paula Broadwell wasn’t the wrong hands.
He left the books in a house she was staying at that wans’t even hers and it sure in hell wasn’t a SCIF.
Seriously, you are saying what Hillary Clinton was saying about herself.
What is wrong with you? Why won’t you read the plea agreement?
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:52 pmI support Gabriel Hanna’s comments in this post. He has done the research necessary to have an informed opinion.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:00 pmGabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:52 pm
And I don’t think that what she did, security-wise, was a big problem – except for the possibility that she deliberately disclosed things she shouldn’t have. Which is, I think, a great possibility.
I keep on saying her server was more secure than anything else. And it’s true.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:00 pmDid you miss it? Here it is again:
Yes I saw that. It was obviously designed to make it sound as bad as possible. You have to read between the lines. Nowhere does it state how old any of that information was. I suspect most of it was not at all ccurrent. It does state that a lot of the material in those books was not classified. It does not give any estimate of a percentage.
And note: He agreed to submit to the Council of Intelligence any writing that contains mention of intelligence data or activities. This obviously means he could write it in the first place! He was not prohibited from putting it down on paper.
He could probably also show it to a few people in confidence, because that always done when someone writes a book or article that he wants to publish. And I don’t see how he is prohibited from having a co-author who also has a security clearance, and even show him or her original documents. I am pretty sure such a standard was never applied to anyone else. There’ just never been such an investigation.
And – no matter what Petreaus signed – it is simply not true that any disclosure in an unathorized manner could jeopardize the intelligence activities of the United States. Only certain kinds of unauthorized disclosure reasonably could.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:13 pmHaven’t been around for a while. Patterico. You are a FUCKING CLOWN. Have a great life, you stupid moron!!!! You were soooooo smart!!! You even jumped ship to be a BEEEEEG STAR.
Patterico, you are a worthless pussy!!! You know it, I know it.. CONGRATULATION ASS-HOLE!!!!
You are a CLOWN, You are a WAS.
GUS (30b6bd) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:37 pmHi, Gus!
Patterico (572840) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:50 pm(quoting Blazing Saddles) Woo could argue with that?!
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:52 pmDifficult to say. There was no actual damage to national security. It was a special deal only in the context of the Obama Administration crackdown on secrets maybe.
On the other hand, the FBI does take seriously, though, lying to the FBI in a high profile investigation, although they may try to avoid saying something is a lie if they can.
Unless you have Clinton’s lawyers (and maybe also an assurance that you are not being bugged – Bill and Hillary Clinton take care of that by always a lawyer present in the room when they are conspiring to cover things up) lying to the FBI like that may be difficult to get away with.
Scooter Libby got in trouble for lying, and nothing else. Martha Stewart also. So that could be said to be true. I’ll take your word for it that Petreaus did indeed flat-out lie to federal agents.
[Hillary was more careful – she didn’t speak until everybody else had spoken; and she knew what they had said because she was paying for their lawyers; and she knew what the FBI knew because she knew what questons she and others had been asked; and she spoke only after Bill Clinton found out – merely by not having Loretta Lynch refuse to talk to him – that there would be no unexpected questions, because not refusing to talk to him neant there was no RICO investigation yet; and she had a FBI that was going to take what she and everybody else said as the truth unless there was no other possible alternative – an FBI that could just accept a laptop and a USB drive as being lost without drilling down.]
But it is also true that Petraeus normally would never have been put in a position to lie. A lot of others might have. What somebody is supposed to do in that case when they’re caught is not give an interview or take the 5th amendment, but because they are in high office or have a reputation they don’t always do that, and they compound their problems.
Except ones that the Senate wants to impose, in appointments requiring confirmation. They can use anything as an excuse to vote no. But it probably has to feel right to people, and strict rules unless they are very well known, do not.
I think this discrepancy is explained by the fact that lower level people just get a blanket rule, because they are considered just to be cogs, and interchangeable, although in reality they may not be, while higher ups get individual attention. If you are treating somebody like a cog, they can just get disqualified. That’s not to say that’s really the way things ought to be.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:53 pm*Who
Whatever.
Gabriel is right, of course. Petreaus took TS/SCI information out of the third under-basement where it’s supposed to be, and gave it to his girlfriend, then took it home. A Chief Petty Officer would be doing hard time for this. There is no way he can serve as SoS.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:56 pmScooter Libby got in trouble for lying, and nothing else. Martha Stewart also.
And the man who prosecuted Martha Stewart is the man who declined to prosecute Hillary for far worse.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/29/2016 @ 12:00 amKevin M (25bbee) — 11/29/2016 @ 12:00 am
But Hillary Clinton was careful not to get caught in a lie. Stress on “not get caught.” And she had other people do much of the lying for her.
She also said she didn’t remember a lot pof things.
And she also timed her interview so that it took place at just about the latest point in time when she could be indicted, because anything later would be considered interference with an election (but most people didn’t know that. It became much more well known after Comey revealed that there were uninspected emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer.
Hillary Clinton timed her interview. She kept on postponing her interview, and then, after Loretta Lynch did not run away from Bill Clinton, she agreed to hold one in 3 days. She also knew she would not be indicted without being given an opportunity to talk to the FBI, and she had never said no.
Or her lawyers knew all of that.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 11/29/2016 @ 12:11 amSteve @51
Patreaus pled guilty to a misdemeanor.
The 1001 count you refer to is a felony.
But, there is a DOJ policy against indicting someone on a 1001 count based on a “false exculpatory statement” — i.e., a denial of criminal activity.
It’s generally accepted that most people won’t admit to crimes when given an open ended opportunity to do so. Most confessions are the result of people being confronted with direct evidence of their guilt. So the standard tactic of an FBI agent is to ask a open ended question, get the false denial, then show the person the email, or play a recording which exposes the falsity of what they just said. Then they tell the person that lying to an FBI agent is a separate offense, and then ask the same question again that they previously denied.
The outcome of his case is generally referred to as a “charge bargain” rather than a “plea bargain” — in exhange for agreeing to plead guilty to the lesser offense, the government agrees to not file the more serious offense. While the facts might have seemed like a “no-brainer”, that doesn’t change the fact that you would be looking at filing a felony charge against a retired 4 Star General with a long and distinguised military career of great accomplishment and distinction. Its not hard to conceive of an outcome in such a case of simply jury nullifcation regardless of the facts, as the jury is going to sit through several days of testimony involving a “character” defense.
1001 charges are more generally used in instances where a person fed false information to the FBI or other federal agency to send them in the wrong direction or otherwise purposely hamper their fact gathering efforts. I’m involved in a case right now where a high profile elected official basically concocted an entire scenario to try and explain away some corrupt conduct by a high ranking subordinate. The entire scenario has been exposed as a series of falsehoods — that gets you a 1001 charge.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/29/2016 @ 12:16 am
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/29/2016 @ 3:48 amMendozaaaaaa!!Truuuuuuuuuuuump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I’m still pondering the remarkable thing that happened and am hoping and praying Trump will find the guidance necessary to right the foundering ship of state.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/29/2016 @ 3:59 amMeanwhile tom price has been selected for hhs, now back to the game if twister, btw kellyanne has gotten a meal or two since stay put was locked in the cubbard
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 6:32 amLame, Elaine Chao, beard of _____ __ _______ is the new Transportation Secretary. If it wasnt my sort-of field, I’d say get rid of it in that it has been nothing but the token opposite party (LaHood, Mineta), spouse (Liddy-light Dole, now Chao), and semi-corrupt mayors “tocayo” with Mexican Presidents (Federico Pena, Anthony Foxx) post.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 11/29/2016 @ 8:26 amIf I recall from 2012, the conventional wisdom at the time was that Barack was concerned that Petraeus might become a potent VP choice for Romney. So Team Barack was doing oppo-research on Petraeus in advance. They were probably spying on him, so that’s how Team Barack discovered the affair and then the stuff with the classified materials. They prosecuted him in order to take him out of consideration for VP.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/29/2016 @ 8:35 amTheir maybe something to that, kt marfarland back then was relaying that message.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 8:41 amULB,
Chao has the secret map showing the location of all the blocked swamp drains. She’s simply indispensable to fulfillment of the cunning plan to turn DC into a desert wasteland.
Rick Ballard (d17095) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:14 amI’m not buying that, as with devos she belongs to the drain clogging guild, price is a better choice
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:30 amYeah, Price is the bad cop version of Tom Coburn.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:37 amAnd she had other people do much of the lying for her.
He didn’t charge them, either.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:48 amTruuuuuuuuuuuump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:48 amSo Team Barack was doing oppo-research on Petraeus in advance.
And it may be that this is what they all do. In which case we have no secrets.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:50 amCruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/29/2016 @ 8:35 am
I doubt this very much. How would anybody even try to anticipate who would be VP?
What I understand is that General Petraeus was communicating to Paula Broadwell from his office at CIA HQ, but everything coming out of Langley is eavesdropped on, but this is supposed to be strictly controlled and limited to any loss of intelligence information, and nobody is supposed to reveal anything unrelated hey learn, but some people at the CIA who were afraid of being fired found out about it, but they couldn’t use it, because they are not supposed to pay any attention to that.
And so I think they ginned up the complaint by Jill Kelley against Paula Broadwell, so that her emails would be read by the FBI. Paula Broadwell did not actually send any of the e-mails to Jill Kelley that she complained about – they almost admitted that. It was an excuse for the FBI to get into her e-mail account.
So his underlings at the CIA got rid of the director before he could get rid of them.
I see that today the New York Daily News, which was tremendously pro-Clinton and anti-Trump made a big headline out of this, so appointing him Secretary of State, or at least giving Petraeus more promimence, must be a good thing. The Daily News is too much against him.
Actually KT McFarland would be very good.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 11/29/2016 @ 10:00 amSF: And she had other people do much of the lying for her.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/29/2016 @ 9:48 am
I think the standaard was, accept what they say as the truth unless you have no other possible alternative.
He even allowed a few people to correct the record. They got immmunity, but the kind of immunity that still allowed them to claim the 5th amendment before a Congressional committee. Well, actually maybe DOJ was making these decisions.
The examination of the electronic records was very strictly controlled. Nothing after January 15, 2015 on the grounds that would get into attorney client privilege. Automated examination of Weiner’s laptop and extracting only e-mail to or from state.gov probably and only to or from Hillary.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 11/29/2016 @ 10:06 amThis RCP Trump Cabinet page is worth a bookmark if you’re trying to keep the lineup straight. I’m a little curious as to what was traded for the Chao appointment. I don’t believe Giuliani can be confirmed without some real arm twisting.
Rick Ballard (d17095) — 11/29/2016 @ 10:24 amThat’s agood page. It’s got some names under consideration I didn’t read or hear about. Richard Haass as a possible Secretary of State?
Wasn’t Elaine Chao already in the Cabinet? yes, she was secretary of Labor for all 8 years of the Bush II Administration. She is the wife of Mitch McConnell, senior U.S. Senator from Kentucky and the Senate Majority Leader.
In the Bush I Administration she was Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Director of the Peace Corps.
Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f) — 11/29/2016 @ 10:36 amRichard haas, hell no for a whole host if reasons.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 10:45 am@ shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/29/2016 @ 12:16 am
This case of a retired Marine refutes all your points.
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/retired-gen-james-cartwright-charged-with-making-false-statements
http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/retired-general-pleads-guilty-to-misleading-fbi-746438.htm
Cartwright faces a maximum of five years in prison (in reality he’ll do much, much less time) for making false exculpatory statements.
Cartwright chose poorly. You can’t play word games with the FBI. He confirmed the information. That makes him as much a source of the information as the original leaker, and just as much a criminal, and if Cartwright had been paying attention to his annual briefings he’d know that. It’s common knowledge; just because something that is classified appears in the news or in a book that doesn’t mean it’s been declassified. Leakers do not have declassification authority. It’s still classified and you don’t confirm it to unauthorized persons. You don’t even discuss it with unauthorized persons, it’s still your job to protect it.
If these reporters were unsure about the information, and Cartwright had let them remain in that state of confusion, the information never have been published. Good reporters don’t like to publish things they don’t know are true. Cartwright confirmed that what they had was in fact true. So it got published. That’s the damage Cartwright did. That’s exactly the crime Cartwright denied he had committed. And now he’ll be going to prison for that denial.
None of that helped Cartwright, who was known as “Barack Obama’s favorite general.” He had as many stars and had just as long and just as distinguished a career as Petraeus.
And yes, I know Petraeus plead guilty to a misdemeanor. But I suggest you scroll up Gabriel Hanna’s comment @52 and read the kind of of classified information Petraeus retained without authorization. That’s not CONFIDENTIAL. Nobody goes to jail for playing fast and loose with CONFIDENTIAL. That’s not SECRET. It’s possible to go to prison for SECRET, but that usually depends on the sheer volume of the information you’ve removed from it’s proper place of storage. A few pages of SECRET generally won’t put you in prison but now we’re getting into Misdemeanor/probation territory. besides his girlfriend had a TS/SCI clearance, which means she could see anything classified below that level and thus wouldn’t constitute unauhorized disclosure. But deliberately remove and retain one page of TS/SCI and that will send you to prison. And remember the “C” stands for compartemented. Just because you have a TS/SCI clearance doesn’t mean you can see documents in all compartments. You have to have a need to know in order to be granted access to that compartment. That’s the whole point of compartmenting it; it restricts the number of people who can have access to it. And therefore cuts down on the number of people who can potentially compromise it.
Petraeus compromised that information when he granted access to to his girlfriend, who had no need to know and therefore was not authorized to view it. He agreed to a recorded interview with his mistress/biographer. She asked to go through his black books.
“Highly classified, “code word stuff” (slang for compartmented as there are letter codes for each compartment). Again people go to prison for that. If I had done it, if you had done it, we would be heading to prison. Allowing Petraeus to get away with a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material does not fit his crime. 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, paragragh (d) fits his crime. It was a sweatheart deal that nobody else would get. I think the judge knew that, too, and was pissed off. Which is why he refused to accept part of the plea deal and instead of he agreed $40k fine he jacked it up to the maximum $100k.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/29/2016 @ 11:46 am* the information might never have been published.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 11/29/2016 @ 11:48 amSo was the original source and was it only about stuixnet?
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 11:52 amSpeaking as someone who is #NeverHillary, thinks she should have been prosecuted for the emails, thinks Petraeus is brilliant, and is cautiously optimistic about the Trump presidency, I can recognize that what Patreus did is worse than what Hillary did. That anyone would defend it based on how he got caught is appalling.
matt d (d4aa6f) — 11/29/2016 @ 12:33 pmPetraeous would be a bad choice for any job requiring a security clearance for the reasons Gabriel and Steve57 have detailed.
The one thing I would add is that anyone who has ever been part of a SAP briefing is familiar with the VIP who opens up his notebook and proceeds to take notes he plans to walk out with in clear violation of his obligation to keep the info inside program channels. Everybody’s seen it but rarely does anyone ever say anything about it.
Petraeous did this with regularity and with full knowledge the notes he was taking were required to be protected by more than maintaining personal custody of his notebooks outside the SCIF and authorized storage containers. He darn well knew his rucksack and unlocked home desk drawer didn’t qualify. Despite that the practice is widespread enough that David Kendall might have been able to cut a sweeter deal, as he did with Hillary, if Broadwell didn’t have an audiotape of Petraeous telling her the black books were full of SAP stuff.
Meeting with Trump and picking his brain is fine but putting him to work on anything other than fixing the VA is a big mistake. The VA, however, is just the kind of mess that Petraeous could turn around and best of all no security clearance is required!
crazy (d3b449) — 11/29/2016 @ 12:57 pmI think that flynn really respects his former boss.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 1:10 pmSteve — you understand that I worked for DOJ for 23 years, right?? I was involved in many such situations just like this — you understand that, right??
Do you understand the implication of pleading to an “Information” charging you with a 1001 count??
I didn’t think so.
This is, once again, a “charge bargain.” Cartwright’s underlying criminal conduct was deemed much more significant than Patreaus’ conduct since he revealed/confirmed the existence of an SCI program that was used against Iran, and his actions contributed to the book being published with the classified information.
Patreaus allowed someone without a “need to know” to review classified/secret/sci information. But the book she wrote, which Patreaus scrubbed himself, ended up disclosing no classified information that wasn’t already available from another public source.
The prosecutors in Patreaus wanted to push for the filing of felony charges under the Espionage Act and 1001. But Patreaus’ lawyers promised they would take any felony charges to trial, and there was serious disagreements in DOJ about whether that case could be won in North Carolina.
I could go through it point by point with you, but the fact remains that in Cartwright’s situation, he AGREED to plead guilty to the felony of misleading the FBI prior to him being charged, and he AGREED to plead guilty to that charge in order to AVOID felony charges relating to the actual criminal conduct, which was the leaking of classified material to the press knowing that the information could be used to the advantage of a foreign country.
The key difference in the two circumstances is that the Stuxnet information was put into the public domain by someone because, as you point out, the authors already had the information. So the FBI investigation was trying to uncover who had done it. In that circumstance, a “false denial” contains the potential for sending the investigators in different — and wrong — direction. And, I don’t think the investigators or prosecutors in Cartwright’s case believed his claim that he wasn’t the source of the original leak.
An experienced federal criminal defense attorney is going to be able to look at the federal sentencing guidelines, and make a determination as to what might be the best avenue to take in trying to work out a plea agreement that stands the best chance of getting the judge to go along with the agreement of the parties that he should face no more than 6 months. Some felonies with a potential maximum of 5 years under the statute, have recommended sentences under the guidelines of far less — and in many circumstances a 1001 count, when applied to someone with no prior criminal record, results in a guideline range of 0-6 months, because that particular crime has a very low base offense level if no aggravating factors are involved.
The base offense level for a charge under the Espionage Act is much much higher than the base offense level under 1001. The Espionage Act carries a 10 year potential maximum for the 973(d), which is the provision most likely to have applied to him, and under the guidelines the recommended sentence would have been 6-7 years in prison. That would have been more than the absolute maximum — the worst possible sentence under 1001.
My original point was that there is a DOJ policy against indicting someone based on a “false exculpatory statement”. The reason for this is since its deemed a “false” statement, there is sufficient evidence that the person actually committed the crime, so you indict them for the crime.
But that presupposes that you don’t have a Pre-Indictment plea deal worked out. That happens when you send the subject of a federal investigation a “Target Letter” letting them know they are under investigation, and that they should get a lawyer and have the lawyer contact the prosecutor. Discussions to resolve the case can begin as early as that moment. I’m sure that’s what happened here.
So Cartwright did benefit from his status as a 4 Star General — rather than plead guilty to a felony violation of the Espionage Act, he was given the opportunity to plead guilty to the less serious felony of lying to the FBI, which would carry a much lower risk of actual jail time.
And the “quantity” of information disclosed is not a factor in espionage cases or “spillage” cases — which are more common. There is a significant enhancement under the sentencing guidelines under the Espionage Act when TS or higher information is involved, but the quantity of information doesn’t change a defendant’s exposure.
And if the Judge was pissed off as you claim, he could have rejected the plea agreement altogether. He didn’t — what he did was find that because payment of a fine is based on the defendant’s financial ability to pay, Patreaus was financially able to pay more than $40,000, so he imposed the maximum fine authorized by law, $100,000.00. If he thought the “probation only” deal was inappropriate, he could have sentenced him to one year in custody. He didn’t.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/29/2016 @ 1:43 pmMatt — what Hillary did was far worse, because she created a potential “open pipe” for classified information of all levels to flow outside secure channels without anyone’s knowlege for a period of YEARS, and she purposely concealed its existence from State Dept. security because she didn’t want to be subject to federal laws such as FOIA. The most “benign” way to describe what she did was the charge that Patreaus pled guilty to — which was the “construct” that she “stored” classified information on her server which was not authorized for such, analogizing the server to a big electronic filing cabinet in her basement. But the analogy only holds up if that big filing cabinet in the basement has a hole cut in the bottom which allows foreign actors to reach up inside and remove everything kept in the filing cabinet, and you continue to put classified stuff in the filing cabinet without really caring that its got a big hole in the bottom.
Patreaus created a situation where someone could have stolen his notebooks, but he would have immediately been aware they were missing, and efforts could have been undertaken to recover them. But they weren’t stolen, and nothing in his notebooks that was classified information made it into the public domain.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/29/2016 @ 1:57 pmNotwithstanding shipwreckedcrew’s explanation one big difference between Hillary and Petraeous is DOJ doesn’t have a tape of Hillary stating the contents contain highly classified code word stuff. Both knew what they were doing was wrong. Both did it anyway. Both denied it. One was trapped by his own words. The other set free apparently by her faulty memory. Neither would have been in DOJ’s sights if they’d followed the rules. If Petraeous had surrendered his notebooks to the DOD and CIA historians his biographer could have requested access through a longstanding process based on need. Petraeous obviously didn’t want to give them up or none of this would have happened.
crazy (d3b449) — 11/29/2016 @ 3:50 pmClinton wasn’t set free by her faulty memory.
The FBI Dir. opted to allow the “Court of Public Opinion” to render a verdict on her.
There was really no good option for him. Had he recommended that the matter be presented to a GJ, his recommendation would have been derided as overtly political. The Obama DOJ would have sat on it, but you would have had the spectacle of a US election involving a party nominee about whom the FBI had said she should be charged with a criminal act.
He could have done nothing, said nothing, but they he was already watching her proclaim the fact that the FBI was just doing a “security review” of her email server. I think if Hillary had said NOTHING, rather than try to deflect and dissemble, Comey might have opted to do nothing.
But her cavalier attitude — and IMO the “protection” she was getting from within DOJ — pretty much drove him to make the public statement he made.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/29/2016 @ 4:42 pmThanks for the clarification. Only meant to compare her purposeful not remembering and Petraeous’ unwitting acknowledgment on tape.
crazy (d3b449) — 11/29/2016 @ 4:53 pmhave we considered an alternate scenario, I know millions of words have been expended since these events, but considering the circumstances, in may 2012, Petraeus was seeing what the absence of his presence was having in the curtailed counterinsurgency strategy, in Afghanistan, and what the pull out in Iraq, was causing, early on, he figured that broadwell was someone trustworthy to carry the real story of what was going on,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 4:55 pmThe reason to share the notebooks with his biographer would have been to get the dates and details right about events she was writing about. Unfortunately for him they were commingled with classified notes he shouldn’t have been walking around with. He knew that and seemed to be warning Broadwell to be careful with them when he told her there was a lot of highly classified code word stuff in them. Regardless we would have likely been none the wiser if Jill Kelley hadn’t complained to a local FBI acquaintance that somebody was messing with her setting events in motion events culminating with the FBI knocking on his door.
All he had to do was follow the same rules he urged his subordinates to follow and none of this would have happened.
crazy (d3b449) — 11/29/2016 @ 5:18 pmlets be blunt, the only reason this case was pursued was to destroy their most prominent policy rival on foreign issues, like Chisholm re the walker supporters, or Ronnie earle, re delay, lets not assume this was an issue about justice,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 5:31 pm@98. Likely true. Still, his judgement was poor with a ‘broad’… and it didn’t end ‘well.’
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/29/2016 @ 5:35 pmMaybe, but what else was gonna happen when the FBI gained possession of the Broadwell-Petraeous tape? Sometimes good people do bad things whether somebody else is out to get them or not.
crazy (d3b449) — 11/29/2016 @ 5:53 pmas I say, how would they have come to that eventuality, without serious mischief on the part of the administration,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/29/2016 @ 6:05 pmConspiracies are easy to believe and hard to disprove but on June 3, 2013 the Tampa Tribune article on Jill Kelley’s lawsuit claiming FBI and military violated her privacy reported:
Nothing we’ve learned in the last 3 years contradicts that.
crazy (d3b449) — 11/29/2016 @ 7:29 pm