2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Irish YJ]

So his willful sharing of confidential information is not disqualifying?

What info did he share. Honest Q

 

[NDRock]

I actually saw him speak at ND many years ago while I was still in school. Extremely unimpressive, I came away flat out disappointed.

I listened to him for a couple of hours on Joe Rogan's podcast and kind of felt the same way. That being said, I will still vote for him and would like to see a viable 3rd party to gain some traction in this country.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What info did he share. Honest Q

He shared classified information with a writer he was having an affair with, and who was also writing his biography. It wasn't a good look.

But Petraeus is the man and honestly I didn't give a shit, just like I don't care much about this email scandal.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

He shared classified information with a writer he was having an affair with, and who was also writing his biography. It wasn't a good look.

But Petraeus is the man and honestly I didn't give a shit, just like I don't care much about this email scandal.

Sort of my point.

 

[Irish YJ]

Sort of my point.

Trying to understand what "type" of info he shared. If he put people in harms way, then I care probably more..

 

[Buster Bluth]

Trying to understand what "type" of info he shared. If he put people in harms way, then I care probably more..

lol. You can play that game with anything. No two transgressions are the exact same.

 

[phgreek]

General Petraeus deserved to get clipped. I am certain men in his charge, at some point were ripped for far less. His transgression most certainly disqualifies him from serving as POTUS and specifically CIC....no question in my mind. Not sure what there is to ponder.

Mrs. Clinton was higher in the food chain, thus expectations are higher for handling secure material...that is how it should be...that is not what happened...the end.

The obvious issue here is inequitable treatment of people in a manner completely inverse to the trust and expectations their positions carry. Some lowly technician gets CRUSHED for messing with classified data...and the Secretary of State walks...we know why, and the reasons have been chronicled well in the last few days...

I'm probably the rare bird who likes it when people get clobbered for not following Classified protocols...so I have 0 problem with the Obama crackdown on its face...but obviously, the lack of integrity in the application of DOJ resources is piss poor.

Finally...is anyone in doubt here that Loretta Lynch "earned" herself a nomination to the SCOTUS with this one???? Seems like that fateful conversation with old William Jefferson Clinton will come up...the optics/timing are at least Baaaaaaaad.

 

[pkt77242]

Ivanka for VP? Eric Trump, Bob Corker support Trump/Trump ticket

 

[phgreek]

Ivanka for VP? Eric Trump, Bob Corker support Trump/Trump ticket

creepy, and beyond the realm of reasonable (which makes it a go for Trump).

 

[Emcee77]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Petraeus's crime was far worse than Clinton's.

I recall reading this article about it a few months back:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...andal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/

IIRC, the gist of it is that the differences between the cases are these:

Clinton shared information she probably should have, but may not have, known was classified with people who were entitled to know classified info. The uncertainty over whether the info was classified may have come from the fact that at least some of the info was not "classified at birth," but retroactively, and it is actually difficult to know when that has happened. But in any case, Clinton was extremely "careless" in discussing sensitive information via un-secure email communications.

But Petraeus intentionally shared classified information with a writer, and then he lied to FBI investigators about it.

I don't think there is any fair comparison to be made, unless my facts are out of date.

 

[ACamp1900]

He's not trying win. lol

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Petraeus's crime was far worse than Clinton's.

I recall reading this article about it a few months back:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...andal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/

IIRC, the gist of it is that the differences between the cases are these:

Clinton shared information she probably should have, but may not have, known was classified with people who were entitled to know classified info, but she was extremely "careless" in doing so via un-secure email communications.

But Petraeus intentionally shared classified information with a writer, and then he lied to FBI investigators about it.

I don't think there is any fair comparison to be made, unless my facts are out of date.

Correct.

 

[phgreek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Petraeus's crime was far worse than Clinton's.

I recall reading this article about it a few months back:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...andal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/

IIRC, the gist of it is that the differences between the cases are these:

Clinton shared information she probably should have, but may not have, known was classified with people who were entitled to know classified info. The uncertainty over whether the info was classified may have come from the fact that at least some of the info was not "classified at birth," but retroactively, and it is actually difficult to know when that has happened. But in any case, Clinton was extremely "careless" in discussing sensitive information via un-secure email communications.

But Petraeus intentionally shared classified information with a writer, and then he lied to FBI investigators about it.

I don't think there is any fair comparison to be made, unless my facts are out of date.

lets not confuse ease of prosecution with the seriousness of the transgression in terms of the harm each could bring...

paper is recoverable, and was recovered in Mr. Petreaus' case....the harm was contained.

Mr. Comey "Does not know" who saw Mrs. Clinton's email...but he knows there were hack attempts...and there were successful hack attempts perpetrated on those she regularaly emailed with...Also, as the former CIA member of the oversight committee asked...and Mr. Comey confirmed...Mrs. Clinton's email contained Sig-Int and Hum-Int....

Is it worse to be exposed and not know it, or to be exposed and know exactly what that exposure is/was? Ask the operative on the corner of BFE that question.

So it is disingenuous to say Petraeus' transgression was worse...

 

[kmoose]

IIRC, the gist of it is that the differences between the cases are these:

Clinton shared information she probably should have, but may not have, known was classified with people who were entitled to know classified info. The uncertainty over whether the info was classified may have come from the fact that at least some of the info was not "classified at birth," but retroactively, and it is actually difficult to know when that has happened.

Incorrect!

From Cormey's statement:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

Who she shared them with is immaterial. The violation was in the method she used to share the information with them(an unsecured, personal server).

 

[wizards8507]

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FDonaldTrump%2Fvideos%2F10157263351880725%2F&show_text=0&width=400" width="400" height="400" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

 

[pkt77242]

lets not confuse ease of prosecution with the seriousness of the transgression in terms of the harm each could bring...

paper is recoverable, and was recovered in Mr. Petreaus' case....the harm was contained.

Mr. Comey "Does not know" who saw Mrs. Clinton's email...but he knows there were hack attempts...and there were successful hack attempts perpetrated on those she regularaly emailed with...Also, as the former CIA member of the oversight committee asked...and Mr. Comey confirmed...Mrs. Clinton's email contained Sig-Int and Hum-Int....

Is it worse to be exposed and not know it, or to be exposed and know exactly what that exposure is/was? Ask the operative on the corner of BFE that question.

So it is disingenuous to say Petraeus' transgression was worse...

Technically, she could have shared it with other people. To call it recoverable once it is given out to someone, seems a little bit of a stretch, especially since I believe that she had it for a little while.

She being the writer/mistress.

 

[MJ12666]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Petraeus's crime was far worse than Clinton's.

I recall reading this article about it a few months back:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...andal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/

IIRC, the gist of it is that the differences between the cases are these:

Clinton shared information she probably should have, but may not have, known was classified with people who were entitled to know classified info. The uncertainty over whether the info was classified may have come from the fact that at least some of the info was not "classified at birth," but retroactively, and it is actually difficult to know when that has happened. But in any case, Clinton was extremely "careless" in discussing sensitive information via un-secure email communications.

But Petraeus intentionally shared classified information with a writer, and then he lied to FBI investigators about it.

I don't think there is any fair comparison to be made, unless my facts are out of date.

This is not entirely accurate according to the testimony that Comey is giving today. Gowdy asked Comey directly regarding Clinton’s claim that nothing she sent or received was marked classified. Comey specifically said that some of the e-mails were marked classified. I think this was also talked about by Chaffitz and Comey told Chaffitz If Congress makes a formal request the FBI will investigate to determine if she committed perjury during her Benghzi testimony. If I remember correctly Roger Clemons was indicted and charged with perjury over giving false testimony to Congress when they were investigating the use of steroids.

 

[Emcee77]

lets not confuse ease of prosecution with the seriousness of the transgression in terms of the harm each could bring...

paper is recoverable, and was recovered in Mr. Petreaus' case....the harm was contained.

Mr. Comey "Does not know" who saw Mrs. Clinton's email...but he knows there were hack attempts...and there were successful hack attempts perpetrated on those she regularaly emailed with...Also, as the former CIA member of the oversight committee asked...and Mr. Comey confirmed...Mrs. Clinton's email contained Sig-Int and Hum-Int....

Is it worse to be exposed and not know it, or to be exposed and know exactly what that exposure is/was? Ask the operative on the corner of BFE that question.

So it is disingenuous to say Petraeus' transgression was worse...

I hope you didn't really mean "disingenuous." I definitely don't deserve to be called a liar.

In my view, intentionally sharing info you know is classified with someone you know isn't entitled to see it is worse than sharing info that might be classified with people who are entitled to see it, but doing it basically on the Internet version of a park bench. The first is a knowing and intentional breach of trust; the second is an indiscretion.

You may disagree, and there are perfectly reasonable, contrary positions to take, but I do sincerely hold the view I've described. It is not "disingenuous" for me to say so.

Incorrect!

From Cormey's statement:



Who she shared them with is immaterial. The violation was in the method she used to share the information with them(an unsecured, personal server).

I don't think anything you have written shows that anything I wrote was incorrect.

 

[phgreek]

Technically, she could have shared it with other people. To call it recoverable once it is given out to someone, seems a little bit of a stretch, especially since I believe that she had it for a little while.

She being the writer/mistress.

agree...that is possible. However..."worse" was applied to petreaus...I disagree, and think that conversation seems to hinge on which one could be prosecuted...not which one was potentially worse...or more likely to lead to secrets getting in enemy hands.

Which one was dated information...which one could have been being accessed near real time...both are bad...which is worse?

Which could have a hope of having a reasonable chain of custody...fingerprints etc? Which can be tied to physical contact with others, and the comings and goings of the mistress. There is a reasonable hope here....unless you believe the mistress sought to sell the secrets, someone would need to know she had it, and steel it, requiring their presence.

...no not perfect, but I'm guessing they had a sense of chain of custody, and motives.

If Mrs. Clinton's server isn't worse...it is at least as bad.

 

[Emcee77]

This is not entirely accurate according to the testimony that Comey is giving today. Gowdy asked Comey directly regarding Clinton’s claim that nothing she sent or received was marked classified. Comey specifically said that some of the e-mails were marked classified. I think this was also talked about by Chaffitz and Comey told Chaffitz If Congress makes a formal request the FBI will investigate to determine if she committed perjury during her Benghzi testimony. If I remember correctly Roger Clemons was indicted and charged with perjury over giving false testimony to Congress when they were investigating the use of steroids.

Right, more info coming out today:

Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses - POLITICO

One of the key distinctions between Petraeus's case and Hillary's case is that Petraeus outright lied to federal investigators.

If it turns out that Hillary did the same thing, then the distinction between the cases is much narrower.

 

[wizards8507]

If it turns out that Hillary did the same thing, then the distinction between the cases is much narrower.

We know for an absolute fact that she lied under oath to the House committee. What's the difference?

 

[Emcee77]

We know for an absolute fact that she lied under oath to the House committee. What's the difference?

I don't know what you are referring to.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't know what you are referring to.

You mentioned Petraeus lying to federal investigators as a reason why his offense was more severe than Clinton's. But we've already discussed how Comey's testimony makes it clear that Clinton lied during the Benghazi hearings. Why is lying to investigators in Patreus' case "worse" than lying to a House committee in Clinton's case.

 

[Emcee77]

You mentioned Petraeus lying to federal investigators as a reason why his offense was more severe than Clinton's. But we've already discussed how Comey's testimony makes it clear that Clinton lied during the Benghazi hearings. Why is lying to investigators in Patreus' case "worse" than lying to a House committee in Clinton's case.

Comey specifically said today that Clinton did not lie to the FBI, and he could not confirm that Clinton lied to the House during the Benghazi hearings. He said he needed a Congressional referral to investigate that. So I don't know what you are referring to when you say we know for a fact that Hillary lied to Congress. Comey does not know it for a fact.

In any case, that isn't the lying I was talking about. Petraeus lied to federal investigators, FBI agents, I think, about the crime they were investigating him for.

That's not to say that perjury before Congress isn't serious; it's probably more serious. But it isn't what I was talking about when I said that if it turns out that Clinton lied to federal investigators the way Petraeus did, the distinction between their cases will narrow.

 

[wizards8507]

Comey specifically said today that Clinton did not lie to the FBI, and he could not confirm that Clinton lied to the House during the Benghazi hearings. He said he needed a Congressional referral to investigate that. So I don't know what you are referring to when you say we know for a fact that Hillary lied to Congress.

All that means is that Comey doesn't know every word of Clinton's Benghazi testimony.

Clinton in Benghazi testimony: My house is blue.

Comey: Our investigation reveals that Hillary Clinton's house is white, but I cannot confirm whether Hillary Clinton lied to the House because we haven't investigated whether she ever said her house was a color other than white.

Thus, Comey's testimony confirms that she lied without him saying "she lied."

 

[GoIrish41]

Didn't Petraeus willfully hand over classified military information about an ongoing conflict to a woman who he was banging and who was going to use the information to write a book? That seems significantly worse than careless mishandling of classified information that had a potential to be a source for security leaks.

 

[MJ12666]

Comey specifically said today that Clinton did not lie to the FBI, and he could not confirm that Clinton lied to the House during the Benghazi hearings. He said he needed a Congressional referral to investigate that. So I don't know what you are referring to when you say we know for a fact that Hillary lied to Congress.

This is true although (again if my memory serves me correctly) Chaffitz specifically quoted Clinton's testimony when asked if she ever sent or received e-mails marked classified at the time. According to Chaffitz the Clinton replied that she did not. According to Comey the FBI asked her the same question and she responded yes she did send and recieve e-mails marked as classified. Then Chaffitz asked him why that is not perjury. Comey replied that he could only investigate this if the Congress specifically requested the investigation. At which point Chaffitz replied that they would receive a formal request within hours.

 

[MJ12666]

All that means is that Comey doesn't know every word of Clinton's Benghazi testimony.

Clinton in Benghazi testimony: My house is blue.

Comey: Our investigation reveals that Hillary Clinton's house is white, but I cannot confirm whether Hillary Clinton lied to the House because we haven't investigated whether she ever said her house was a color other than white.

Thus, Comey's testimony confirms that she lied without him saying "she lied."

Comey's reponse was a little more diplomatic (lol). Basically he said that the FBI would not initiate an investigation into what occurs during sworn congressional testimony without receiving a formal referral from Congress.

 

[wizards8507]

Comey's reponse was a little more diplomatic (lol). Basically he said that the FBI would not initiate an investigation into what occurs during sworn congressional testimony without receiving a formal referral from Congress.

I'm not even sure if that was within his discretion. I read the testimony as if he CAN'T comment without having received the formal request.

 

[phgreek]

I hope you didn't really mean "disingenuous." I definitely don't deserve to be called a liar.

In my view, intentionally sharing info you know is classified with someone you know isn't entitled to see it is worse than sharing info that might be classified with people who are entitled to see it, but doing it basically on the Internet version of a park bench. The first is a knowing and intentional breach of trust; the second is an indiscretion.

You may disagree, and there are perfectly reasonable, contrary positions to take, but I do sincerely hold the view I've described. It is not "disingenuous" for me to say so.



I don't think anything you have written shows that anything I wrote was incorrect.

I apologize if you took me to be attacking you personally...I need to do better at qualifying those kind of statements...my point was more about the general narrative I'm hearing, reading.

I don't think the risks associated with Mrs. Clinton's conduct are considered...and that becomes more clear when folks see Petreaus' conduct as "worse". How are we measuring "worse"...conduct that endangers this country, and its operators, or conduct that leads to prosecution or not.

Sure I can make a damn good argument that Clinton's is worse if only the near real time nature her communications became exposed...but I'd be happy if folks just looked at the thing and said...both Petreaus and Clinton did a disservice to this country with their conduct...