Mon May 30, 2016, 09:00 PM
hill2016 (1,772 posts)
anyone recall how much jail time Petraeus, Gonzales and Berger did for mishandling classified info?
just wondering...
|
46 replies, 1614 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
hill2016 | May 2016 | OP |
Thinkingabout | May 2016 | #1 | |
nadinbrzezinski | May 2016 | #2 | |
NWCorona | May 2016 | #11 | |
leveymg | May 2016 | #13 | |
Jitter65 | May 2016 | #42 | |
nadinbrzezinski | May 2016 | #16 | |
opiate69 | May 2016 | #3 | |
Arneoker | May 2016 | #39 | |
gordianot | May 2016 | #4 | |
Avalux | May 2016 | #5 | |
HubertHeaver | May 2016 | #6 | |
QC | May 2016 | #8 | |
Arneoker | May 2016 | #40 | |
choie | May 2016 | #7 | |
leveymg | May 2016 | #15 | |
Mohammed_Lee | May 2016 | #9 | |
stevenleser | May 2016 | #23 | |
lmbradford | May 2016 | #36 | |
apcalc | May 2016 | #10 | |
leveymg | May 2016 | #18 | |
Bob41213 | May 2016 | #24 | |
leveymg | May 2016 | #25 | |
Press Virginia | May 2016 | #33 | |
leveymg | May 2016 | #34 | |
Arneoker | May 2016 | #41 | |
leveymg | May 2016 | #45 | |
apcalc | May 2016 | #43 | |
leveymg | May 2016 | #44 | |
PoliticAverse | May 2016 | #12 | |
lumberjack_jeff | May 2016 | #14 | |
grasswire | May 2016 | #17 | |
riderinthestorm | May 2016 | #19 | |
anotherproletariat | May 2016 | #20 | |
Press Virginia | May 2016 | #32 | |
doc03 | May 2016 | #21 | |
Press Virginia | May 2016 | #28 | |
doc03 | May 2016 | #22 | |
leveymg | May 2016 | #27 | |
Press Virginia | May 2016 | #26 | |
LenaBaby61 | May 2016 | #29 | |
abakan | May 2016 | #30 | |
Chasstev365 | May 2016 | #31 | |
Peachhead22 | May 2016 | #35 | |
lmbradford | May 2016 | #37 | |
Fawke Em | May 2016 | #38 | |
reddread | May 2016 | #46 |
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:03 PM
Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)
1. Interesting question.
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:04 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
2. New talking point!
and it is evolving
|
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #2)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:28 PM
NWCorona (8,541 posts)
11. At least they are imagining an indictment and apparently the possibility of a conviction
Response to NWCorona (Reply #11)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:45 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
13. Difference is, they weren't running for President. And never will.
Nor will she.
|
Response to leveymg (Reply #13)
Tue May 31, 2016, 06:51 AM
Jitter65 (3,089 posts)
42. Difference is they actually revealed classified and TS information to others on purpose.
And Pratreaus had a paramour who received this information during their sexual trysts.
|
Response to NWCorona (Reply #11)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:50 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
16. Well I could make a cruel joke but won't
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:06 PM
opiate69 (10,129 posts)
3. Anyone recall how many terms those three served as president??
Or, hell, let's lower the bar. Anyone recall how many years they were allowed to continue on in their jobs after?
|
Response to opiate69 (Reply #3)
Tue May 31, 2016, 05:39 AM
Arneoker (375 posts)
39. I guess I'll never run for President
That will ensure that I never get indicted!
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:08 PM
gordianot (14,918 posts)
4. What employment do they currently hold that involves classified information?
You don't always go to jail but let the punishment fit the crime?
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:08 PM
Avalux (35,015 posts)
5. I don't recall any of them running for president. Nope. n/t
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:09 PM
HubertHeaver (2,404 posts)
6. And the bar lowers...
Response to HubertHeaver (Reply #6)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:10 PM
QC (26,371 posts)
8. You think? "I've Never Been Imprisoned!" is a fine slogan
for a presidential candidate!
![]() |
Response to QC (Reply #8)
Tue May 31, 2016, 05:41 AM
Arneoker (375 posts)
40. So you're saying that she is not likely to get indicted?
A lot of the other Bernie supporters have been saying something very different. Or do talking points change depending?
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:10 PM
choie (3,889 posts)
7. No jail time for Petraeus..
But he was charged with and plead guilty to a misdemeanor after the FBI and DOJ recommended felony charges..nice try at deflection..
|
Response to choie (Reply #7)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:48 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
15. Berger was convicted, fined $100K. No jail. Different charge after
pleading down to destroying federal records. Interesting case. He tried to destroy all the after-action reports about the entry of the Flt. 77 hijackers entry in January 2000. These are the ones thst CIA and NSA was tracking as they attended the AQ planning summit in Kuala Lumpur and then after they entered the US the FBI liaison at CTC was ordered to withhold a warning cableb to FBI headquarters.
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:12 PM
Mohammed_Lee (38 posts)
9. suspended security clearance would make it difficult to function as president... n/t
Response to Mohammed_Lee (Reply #9)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:21 PM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
23. No, it wouldn't since the President is the ultimate authority on security clearances.
The President can decide who is and who isn't cleared for something and can declassify or classify information.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110113190609/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5) In addition to their greater access to intelligence, the President and his senior advisors also are better equipped than is Congress to assess intelligence information by virtue of the primacy of their roles in formulating U.S. foreign policy. Their foreign policy responsibilities often require active, sustained, and often personal interaction, with senior officials of many of the same countries targeted for intelligence collection by the Intelligence Community. Thus the President and his senior advisors are uniquely positioned to glean additional information and impressions - information that, like certain sensitive intelligence information, is generally unavailable to Congress - that can provide them with an important additional perspective with which to judge the quality of intelligence. Authorities Governing Executive Branch Control Over National Intelligence The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. (6) Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be "the owner" of national intelligence. |
Response to stevenleser (Reply #23)
Mon May 30, 2016, 11:58 PM
lmbradford (517 posts)
36. She isnt President yet
This would prevent her from ever getting clearance again or holding public office or govt job.
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:22 PM
apcalc (4,322 posts)
10. He KNEW it was classified and told.
Very different..,
|
Response to apcalc (Reply #10)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:05 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
18. She knew it was classified too but told him "keep 'em coming"
On another occasion, she told an aide to "strip the (classification) headers and "send unsecure." She knew exactly what she was doing.
|
Response to leveymg (Reply #18)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:22 PM
Bob41213 (491 posts)
24. Does this sounds like someone who didn't know there was classified material?
HRC: "If not classified or otherwise inappropriate, can you send to the NYTimes reporters who interviewed me today?"
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/9821 |
Response to Bob41213 (Reply #24)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:31 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
25. She knew, but was incredibly cavalier about classified information.
Too big to touch, or so she assumed.
|
Response to leveymg (Reply #25)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:40 PM
Press Virginia (2,329 posts)
33. It sounds like she knew she was receiving extremely sensitive and
likely classified information...and knew it
|
Response to leveymg (Reply #18)
Tue May 31, 2016, 05:42 AM
Arneoker (375 posts)
41. And strip the information that was classified
Response to Arneoker (Reply #41)
Tue May 31, 2016, 08:36 AM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
45. No, she said the identifying classification headers. Here's the exact quote:
"If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
|
Response to apcalc (Reply #43)
Tue May 31, 2016, 08:32 AM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
44. Hey, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
Beats eating crow, like the HRC apologia squad has been in recent days.
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:36 PM
PoliticAverse (26,366 posts)
12. Petraeus pled guilty to violating the law, are you saying Clinton violated the law and should also..
plead guilty to doing so?
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 09:47 PM
lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)
14. So, as long as she's not actually *in jail*, she'll be a swell president?
How about house arrest? Do they make ankle monitors that match the green pantsuit?
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:01 PM
grasswire (50,130 posts)
17. that's good....now you are admitting reality.
Admitting that HRC is under investigation and did wrong.
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:07 PM
riderinthestorm (23,272 posts)
19. Phew! Some Hillary supporters finally admitting she's committed crimes
A 1st step...
|
Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #19)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:11 PM
anotherproletariat (1,446 posts)
20. I think what the OP was pointing out, is that even if the lies being spread were to happen,
that the seriousness of what you all are talking about would not disqualify anyone from running for, or serving as president.
|
Response to anotherproletariat (Reply #20)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:39 PM
Press Virginia (2,329 posts)
32. shed be stripped of her security clearance and have a conviction
I doubt it would play well to the masses. And it would be campaign ad after campaign ad attacking her as incompetent or worse
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:19 PM
doc03 (31,297 posts)
21. The " Dick " Cheney didn't get any time for outing a CIA operative n/t
Response to doc03 (Reply #21)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:36 PM
Press Virginia (2,329 posts)
28. Neither did Richard Armitage, who was the person who actually leaked
her name to Novak
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:21 PM
doc03 (31,297 posts)
22. Nobody in the GWB administration got any time for lying us into a war or
violating the Geneva Convention.
|
Response to doc03 (Reply #22)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:35 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
27. HRC was a major part of making that lie real.
We can now do something about not rewarding her. The rest have the ten year Statute of Limitations to shield themselves, tragically.
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:35 PM
Press Virginia (2,329 posts)
26. I think they pleaded down to misdemeanors. If there is an indictment
There will be a plea deal or a commutation.
HRC won't do a second in jail. |
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:37 PM
LenaBaby61 (5,819 posts)
29. I hear you...
OP
![]() |
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:37 PM
abakan (1,632 posts)
30. They sure as fuck
weren't nominated for president. Any kind of comparison between anyone and herself is like comparing snakes to elephants.
They are both air breathing creatures, and that's all. |
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 10:38 PM
Chasstev365 (5,191 posts)
31. I Don't Know:
Did they launder money with a foundation?
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Mon May 30, 2016, 11:47 PM
Peachhead22 (1,070 posts)
35. Does anyone remember what political offices they were elected to after...?
_after_ their cases? Besides they were never elected to anything. They were appointed.
I doubt any one of them could be elected dogcatcher now. They're all pariahs. |
Response to Peachhead22 (Reply #35)
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:02 AM
lmbradford (517 posts)
37. Part of the statute
States clearly that anyone in violation of mishandling classified info will be stripped of clearance, never have it again, and canno hold office or govt jobs even at low levels.
|
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:03 AM
Fawke Em (11,366 posts)
38. John Kiriakou did 30 months.
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Tue May 31, 2016, 08:36 AM
reddread (6,896 posts)
46. with friends like these
who needs traitors?
|