FBI found hundreds of classified files on Petraeus biographer Broadwell’s computer

christiefan915 said:
Let me spell it out in detail.

1. Hillary is being investigated by the FBI.
2. No official report summarizing the results of the investigation has been issued yet.
3. If the report concludes criminal wrongdoing, she should have a trial.
4. If she has a trial and is found guilty she should be punished.
5. If she is found guilty and resigns from the race I'm good with it.
6. If she is found guilty, doesn't resign from the race and can't be forced to do so, the voters will decide in November and I'm good with it.

So far the investigation hasn't moved beyond #1 so I suggest people adopt the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
It's more then just being indicted. she refused to cooperate with the State IG, despite a year of saying she wanted it over with, while asying in public she was willing to talk.
first it was "no classified info" and then it was "no documents marked classified"
Then it was "It was allowed" when having a private server was never 'allowed' and she never got permission to do so anyhow.
she was seen using an unsecued blackberry on Mahogony row (sworn testimony) -

It's pretty much established from her own Emails it was a set up to avoid FOIA requests - while she was saying she wanted the convenience
of "using 1 device" when she used at least 3 (phone/blackberry/ipad) http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/hillary-clinton-ipad-e-mail-devices/

probably more..of the top of my head, she's a congenital liar.
Since when is the standard for an ethical politician to remain above reproach, now one of "catch me if you can!"
 
Again I'm saying Hillary was 100% wrong in using the private server and everything that went with it. However, the only places I've seen where she "refused to cooperate" were right-wing sites.
 
christiefan915 said:
Again I'm saying Hillary was 100% wrong in using the private server and everything that went with it. However, the only places I've seen where she "refused to cooperate" were right-wing sites.
Click to expand...
Through her counsel, Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview," said the OIG report released today'
Click to expand...
Spokesman: Clinton Declined Interview With State Dept. IG, Fearing 'Anti-Clinton Bias'
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-cooperate-her-own-state-dept-ig-fearing-anti

of course they have (yet) another reason why not...this is a Clinton machine -not only rapid response to Trump,but to the news media.
 
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

Honestly, I don't mind watching righty fools, and some of the pitchfork left ( I have seen that on twitter), working themselves into a state of delusional excitement over this. It's kinda awesome.

There will be no indictment and the FBI will conclude the same thing the Inspector General's office did; no crime was committed. There was some bad policy practice, but that goes back long before Hillary and is due mostly to the byzantine practices of the office.

There is a 0 chance of her being indicted.

But go on with all of your "sources" and long explanations you internet lawyers. Keep it up because in my view it keeps you off the streets, and you will be crushed when nothing happens. Then you'll write hundreds of thousands of more incoherent words about a "coverup". The band will march on. Please proceed Governor.
 
Darla said:
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

Honestly, I don't mind watching righty fools, and some of the pitchfork left ( I have seen that on twitter), working themselves into a state of delusional excitement over this. It's kinda awesome.

There will be no indictment and the FBI will conclude the same thing the Inspector General's office did; no crime was committed. There was some bad policy practice, but that goes back long before Hillary and is due mostly to the byzantine practices of the office.

There is a 0 chance of her being indicted.

But go on with all of your "sources" and long explanations you internet lawyers. Keep it up because in my view it keeps you off the streets, and you will be crushed when nothing happens. Then you'll write hundreds of thousands of more incoherent words about a "coverup". The band will march on. Please proceed Governor.
Click to expand...

this is how the party hacks and gender politics crowd will handle this.....no indictment OBVIOUSLY means that there was no criminality. hooray president clinton.
 
One is used for workaday business—memos, drafts, information to department employees, questions and answers between individuals—and that is the type used by Clinton, Powell, and Rice’s senior staff that has been reviewed by the inspector general. The second email system, for materials designated as classified, has nothing to do with this controversy. It uses a highly restricted, compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF.
Click to expand...
but Clinton had no state account.. meaning all of her classified data was sent over the private server.
Further as Sec of State she cold have classified anything she saw (incoming), but never did. why not? did she not send anything with classified info? did she not receive anything..obviously not.

and this:
Should someone around Clinton have been told about these concerns? Probably. Was anyone told? Nope—at least not based on the information contained in the report. The inspector general writes that Clinton never sought permission from legal counsel for the email arrangement, nor did Powell or Rice's senior staff
Click to expand...
Rice didn't use Email..Powell only occcasionally and never on his own server.

There is more here..but the bottom line is her covering it up - she says as little as possible,or corrects to be more inclusive.
Like Nixon's paranoia it wasn't so much the act as the cover up.
Maybe she can wipe the server with a cloth..
 
christiefan915 said:
I've posted about Petraeus before but it bears repeating. Let's hear the roars of outrage that this decorated general endangered national security by sharing classified info with his mistress. Let's demand harsher punishment for this lovesick oaf who got away with a slap on the wrist. Let's not pretend this liar betrayed everything he was supposed to stand for and emerged with his reputation intact. Let's hold Betrayus to the same standard we're holding Hillary to. Guess MoveOn had it right after all.

"FBI agents found hundreds of classified documents on Paula Broadwell’s home computers in Charlotte during their investigation into her relationship with then-CIA Director David Petraeus, according to newly unsealed FBI documents obtained by the Observer. More than 300 of those documents were classified as secret, according to a 2013 FBI affidavit accompanying the agency’s request to search Petraeus’ home in Arlington, Va...

The probe uncovered their affair, revealed their mishandling of classified documents and led to Petraeus’ resignation as head of the CIA. Last year, Petraeus pleaded guilty in Charlotte to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government documents and was fined $100,000. Broadwell, the author of Petraeus’ biography, was never charged. Legal experts say her role as a journalist made any prosecution problematic...

The documents show that when confronted by the FBI, both Broadwell and Petraeus appeared to mislead investigators about their extensive exchange of classified material, most of it involving military and diplomatic operations during Petraeus’ years as commander of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Broadwell claimed to have gotten some of the documents doing research for her book but “was unable to provide specifics as to how she obtained them ...

Broadwell advised that she never received classified information from Petraeus,” the affidavit says. On the contrary, the new documents include details of multiple emails between the two over classified records, including the “black book” diaries and logs Petraeus kept as commander. In one exchange included in the affidavit, Broadwell told Petraeus that certain records he’d shared were “naturally very helpful ... (I want more of them! I know you’re holding back.)”

In June 2011, the affidavit says she expressed excitement at Petraeus’ willingness to share certain files. “(I)’ll protect them. And I’ll protect you,” she wrote.
During the same conversation, Petraeus referred to some files from his time as Iraqi War commander. “Class’d, but I guess I might share!” he told Broadwell.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article82460877.html
Click to expand...

To go back to your original point you want Patraeus held to the same level as Hillary well Patraeus is out of his government job. He's done. Hillary's still running for the highest office in the land. I haven't seen anyone argue Hillary can't go work in the private sector like Patraeus has.
 
cawacko said:
To be clear since tone can hard to tell I'm staying this context of having a discussion with a friend, not attacking you.

Clearly you are posting this as a defense of some sort for Hillary and isn't it a cop out to say you have no thoughts on what any punishment should be for her? She's running for the highest office in the land.
Click to expand...
She isn't Secretary of State, anymore and how can we determine what should be done, until we know if she has broken any laws.
 
cawacko said:
To go back to your original point you want Patraeus held to the same level as Hillary well Patraeus is out of his government job. He's done. Hillary's still running for the highest office in the land. I haven't seen anyone argue Hillary can't go work in the private sector like Patraeus has.
Click to expand...

Why should she drop out before the investigation is concluded?

She may very well drop out in the future depending on the outcome but expecting her to do it now is premature.
 
christiefan915 said:
Why should she drop out before the investigation is concluded?

She may very well drop out in the future depending on the outcome but expecting her to do it now is premature.
Click to expand...

You're asking him to be held to the same standard she is what do you want him to do?
 
christiefan915 said:
Why should she drop out before the investigation is concluded?

She may very well drop out in the future depending on the outcome but expecting her to do it now is premature.
Click to expand...

It is why I continue to state that I am going to wait for the FBI investigation to be concluded, they will state whether she will be indicted, until then, it is all speculation.
 
the standard is breaking laws..no covering up, not ethical quandaries .
f she got referred by the FBI for indictment or even indicted but not convicted, the Dems would still vote for her. amazing
 
cawacko said:
You're asking him to be held to the same standard she is what do you want him to do?
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. He retired from the military and then he got the top position in the CIA. After his classified info leaks were discovered, he went through the system and got off with a slap on the wrist. Now he has all kinds of private sector positions and honors from people who apparently think what he did wasn't worth bothering about. We can't do anything about that. I can, however, point out the double standard between someone who was actually found guilty and someone who's still under investigation. The guilty one gets honored, the one still under investigation gets excoriated. Look at people like Celtic who claim Hillary deserves death for using a private server.

Furthermore Petraeus's actions over Benghazi should be scrutinized also. Yet this is another instance where Petraeus gets a pass.

"Although Petraeus was given good marks by most observers for his work heading the CIA,[SUP][180][/SUP] during October 2012 some critics took issue with the availability of accurate information from the CIA concerning a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the month prior. On September 11 four Americans had been killed, including the Ambassador, and more than thirty evacuated. Only seven of those evacuated did not work for the CIA. According to a Wall Street Journal story, other government agencies complained about being left "largely in the dark about the CIA's role," with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoning Petraeus directly the night of the attacks seeking assistance. Although the "State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security," "the CIA didn't have the same understanding about its security responsibilities," said the Wall Street Journal."[SUP][181][/SUP]
 
anatta said:
the standard is breaking laws..no covering up, not ethical quandaries .
f she got referred by the FBI for indictment or even indicted but not convicted, the Dems would still vote for her. amazing
Click to expand...

Have you questioned the CIA's role in Benghazi? While it was being headed by Petraeus?
 
christiefan915 said:
You have it backwards. He retired from the military and then he got the top position in the CIA. After his classified info leaks were discovered, he went through the system and got off with a slap on the wrist. Now he has all kinds of private sector positions and honors from people who apparently think what he did wasn't worth bothering about. We can't do anything about that. I can, however, point out the double standard between someone who was actually found guilty and someone who's still under investigation. The guilty one gets honored, the one still under investigation gets excoriated. Look at people like Celtic who claim Hillary deserves death for using a private server.

Furthermore Petraeus's actions over Benghazi should be scrutinized also. Yet this is another instance where Petraeus gets a pass.

"Although Petraeus was given good marks by most observers for his work heading the CIA,[SUP][180][/SUP] during October 2012 some critics took issue with the availability of accurate information from the CIA concerning a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the month prior. On September 11 four Americans had been killed, including the Ambassador, and more than thirty evacuated. Only seven of those evacuated did not work for the CIA. According to a Wall Street Journal story, other government agencies complained about being left "largely in the dark about the CIA's role," with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoning Petraeus directly the night of the attacks seeking assistance. Although the "State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security," "the CIA didn't have the same understanding about its security responsibilities," said the Wall Street Journal."[SUP][181][/SUP]
Click to expand...

Slap on the wrist? He lost his job. He's probably not allowed to work for the government again (though I don't know that for a fact). It's not like this is the first time a politician has done something criminal and then gone on to work in the private sector. If Hillary quits this campaign and is basically blackballed from getting a private sector job then I would agree there's a double standard.

At the end of the day when you are running for President you will held to a higher standard than everyone else. You can argue whether that's a good thing or not but that's reality.
 
cawacko said:
The obvious first response is is he currently running for President? Has Hillary had any actual punishment like Patraus has for her actions?
Click to expand...

putting it on your own private server guarded by your lawyers and IT team is actually a different level of wrong than sharing it with your mistress

Funny that dems call trump a facist dictator while their candidate did things to evade all accountability in her post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top