Anyone who thinks that these two cases are the same really do not understand the concepts being discussed. The Defendant was not authorized as part of his duties to download and keep the data while sending and receiving e-mails were part of Clinton's duties as Secretary of State. Politico has a good analysis of this case http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but —
in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Clinton herself, gearing up for her FBI testimony, said last week that a prosecution is “not gonna happen.” And former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant.
“They always involve some ‘plus’ factor. Sometimes that ‘plus’ factor may reach its way into the public record, but more likely it won’t,” one former federal prosecutor said....
Just last year, former Naval Reserve Commander Bryan Nishimura was charged with misdemeanor mishandling of classified information he acquired during his service in Afghanistan. He admitted that he often moved classified data, including satellite imagery, to unclassified systems and brought it back to the U.S. when he returned.
After coming under investigation, Nishimura threw some of the storage media in a Folsom, Calif. lake. He was sentenced to two years probation and a $7,500 fine.
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744#ixzz4Deog0zDC
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
There was some plus factors for this defendant in that he failed to cooperate and attempted to conceal his crime by throwing material into a lake. The intent to cover up the crime shows intent to violate the law and was a plus factor justifying prosecution. The fact that Petraeaus attempted to conceal his crime is the reason why he was prosecuted.
Again the two cases are not that close from a legal standpoint.
= new reply since forum marked as read