Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:14 PM Jun 2016

Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails [View all]

Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:49 PM - Edit history (4)

Previously undisclosed FBI documents obtained from Court filings reveal that the government has long been aware that David Petraeus allegedly revealed Top Secret information to The Washington Post in March, 2011 while he was awaiting appointment as CIA Director. The conversation with reporters was recorded. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023#ixzz4B0AP5ctL (FBI document linked as .pdf at article page)

Petraeus was never charged with this leakage, but was convicted instead of revealing secrets to his biographer after failing to return documents when the General officially retired from the military in August of that year.

The taped conversation with a pair of Post reporters allegedly occurred while Petraeus was under consideration for nomination as CIA Director. The reported topic of two recorded conversations was military developments in Afghanistan, in which Petraeus requests to be identified only as an anonymous senior military official. His appointment to head the CIA was publicly announced on April 28, 2011. Until that time, he was still officially serving as a four-star Army General and top Commander of the International Security Assistance Force.

According to the FBI affidavit, the alleged disclosure of secrets to reporters occurred well before Petraeus improperly shared classified information with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. The same FBI affidavit details email communications from later in the summer in which the two discussed which classified documents he might share.

The text of these emails in the FBI document does not show that any specific classified information was revealed on-line with Broadwell. There was no allegation made in the warrant request that secrets had actually been disclosed, except to Broadwell and the two reporters. According to the affidavit, Broadwell and Petraeus exchanged messages in an email account. The FBI affidavit quotes the CIA Director and Broadwell discussing her access to documents that covered a period of Petraeus' command in Afghanistan and Iraq up to 2005. An audio recording found on Broadwell's computer also shows that in August of that year Broadwell stated she intended to travel to meet Petraeus to review materials stored in the attic of his Arlington, VA house.

***

The release of this FBI document dated April 4, 2013 raises several questions - why did Petraeus tape his own off-the-record conversations with reporters, and why would he retain recordings of himself knowingly revealing Top Secret information? In fact, he was not charged with this disclosure to reporters of what is characterized as Top Secret information, and that is not reflected in previously released court records. The delayed release of these court records comes as we await the release of the FBI report on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's violation of classified information laws. Petraeus resigned as CIA Director two days into the second Obama Administration, with Clinton leaving several weeks later. Unauthorized release of classified information is a common thread that tarnishes the reputations of both.

When we compare the two cases, it becomes clear that the scale of Petraeus' unauthorized release of classified materials was smaller and less potentially damaging than the disclosure to unauthorized persons in the Clinton email case. As the Search Warrant Application makes clear at page 5, Paula Broadwell, a US Army Captain, held an active security clearance at the time classified materials were shared with her. In addition to the three persons implicated in the FBI warrant application, there are no other persons known to have been given access by Petraeus to classified information.

The affidavit at p. 8 describes email between Petraeus and Broadwell in which the two made reference to a classified document, but their messages do not contain specific information about the documents contents. At page 9 of the application, the FBI narrative recounts an instance of release of classified military information from another officer to Broadwell. This document release was openly authorized by Petraeus, and the transfer was carried out by another officer over the SIPR, the secure email system, which is intended for exchange of documents classified up to the Secret level.

Broadwell was interviewed by the FBI, the document states, after a complaint of cyberstalking in late Spring 2012 led the Bureau to examine her email exchanges with Petraeus. She was subsequently interviewed by the FBI who searched her laptops:

Para. 16. On September 24, 2012 as part of the FBI Tampa investigation,
consented to a search of two laptops and two external hard drives belonging to her. A
review of the digital media contained.on these devices revealed over 100 items which
were identified by Charlotte Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) Forensic
Examiners as potentially containing classified information, up to the Secret level.


According to the application at p. 8, subsequent search of Broadwell's home revealed further classified materials in her unauthorized possession:

A review of the seized materials has identified to date
hundreds of potentially classified documents, including more than 300 marked Secret, on
digital images maintained on various pieces of electronic media.


In the most damning email exchange described, Petraeus seems to agree that he might share classified documents related to events that occurred eight or nine years earlier at the time that he transitioned from two-star commander of the 101st Airborne division to commander Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq (MNSTC-I) (Petraeus commanded forces in Iraq from June 2004-June 2005): (page 12)

"My files at home only go up to about when I took cmd of the 101st, though there may be some MNSTC-I and other ones. Somewhere in 2003, I stopped nice filing and just started chunking stuff in boxes
that gradually have gone, or will go, to NDU. Can search them at some point if they're
upstairs, but they're not organized enough at this point ... " PETRAEUS continued,
writing, &quot A)nd I think MNSTC-I files went to NDU (archives at the National Defense University),
though I'm not sure. The key to find there would be the weekly reports that the CIO did with
me. Not.sure if-kept copies. Class'd, but I guess I might share!" (emphasis added).


The timing of this release has the scent of an attempt to draw a distinction between Petraeus and Clinton. However, if one looks closely at the record, it becomes clearer now that the government built its case against Petraeus on Secret documents revealed to Broadwell, who held a security clearance, that were described in the newly-released FBI document as historical in nature. Off the-record discussions with Washington Post reporters was likely recorded by Petraeus, himself, in order to maintain a record of exactly what was said. That discussion was determined by another agency to contain information classified at the Top Secret level.

Altogether, the FBI affidavit states that David Petraeus transferred approximately 400 classified documents. Meanwhile, Clinton's uncertified server accumulated over 2,200 classified messages with 104 emails sent by the Secretary. The State Department determined that 55 to be classified as Secret, and 22 messages and attachments (many confirmed to have originated with other agencies) at the highest TS-SAP level, documents that could only be taken off the most classified gov't information system before being sent over the Secretary's unsecure private email. These documents placed on her server were shared with numerous others, some without security clearances to view them, describing classified U.S. actions and intelligence sources around the world in or near real-time.

Clinton was advised on several instances by Sid Blumenthal that the information he was sending her was confidential and originated with government sources in several countries, including US allies. While it is a felony to fail to report possession of classified information by those not authorized, as well as to mishandle secrets oneself, the record shows the Secretary's own responses were only encouraging, "Great stuff", "keep 'em coming."
168 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Only 5 days left ... then enough of this nonsense n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #1
I wanted to be first DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #2
It worked for Richard Bruce Cheney et. al. and now you embrace it too-how sickening. bobthedrummer Jun 2016 #121
It is sickening that people , wittingly or unwittingly, enable Trump. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #131
How do you know it's nonsense? You responded one minute after the OP went up. leveymg Jun 2016 #5
Nonsense ... as it continuing to throw crap up against the wall OP after OP SFnomad Jun 2016 #14
Like a smear artist saying the same thing over and over again. Octafish Jun 2016 #69
No body gives a shit let alone read all that bull upaloopa Jun 2016 #28
People interested in learning will read it. Octafish Jun 2016 #109
I love it when laypersons try to talk about legal concepts Gothmog Jun 2016 #59
Will the FBI investigation be done in five days? panader0 Jun 2016 #19
Maybe you should read post #14 n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #20
I am sure that the investigation will continue to be REAL NEWS for a while, panader0 Jun 2016 #25
To some extent .. but if someone is posting negative article after negative article SFnomad Jun 2016 #30
Legit criticism will be allowed pinebox Jun 2016 #32
No, this is the speculation of a layperson who does not understand the legal concepts Gothmog Jun 2016 #66
Who exactly is a layperson? Separation Jun 2016 #135
A non lawyer Gothmog Jun 2016 #136
No I specifically left the definition of layperson in my previous reply to you. Separation Jun 2016 #140
Intent will be, or has already, been proved. panader0 Jun 2016 #157
No evidence of intent has been found so far Gothmog Jun 2016 #163
I hope you open your eyes and realize that this issue... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #48
For reasons I cannot fathom, no one seems care about the risk. merrily Jun 2016 #60
If the presumptive nominee can be persuaded to withdraw... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #151
One poster who has been beating beating this dead horse has already been flagged. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #33
It's not a "dead horse" until the investigations are over panader0 Jun 2016 #42
If she is not found guilty of a crime she is "exonerated" DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #44
I guess the nuances are lost on you. panader0 Jun 2016 #46
Nuance isn't lost on DSB DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #57
She can't be "exonerated." The State Dept has already found she broke dozens of regulations. The leveymg Jun 2016 #67
Why are you scared to take my wager? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #74
I'll take you up on that. Separation Jun 2016 #143
Really? Dozens? apcalc Jun 2016 #127
I started to compile a list when the IG report came out, but didn't get even half way through. leveymg Jun 2016 #134
he he he snort. We need a knee slapping emoticon notadmblnd Jun 2016 #160
Discussing this issue is the antithesis of "Trump enabling"... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #50
We'll see... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #64
This has nothing to do with Sanders...it has everything to do with the Dem Party... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #71
This one's at the top MFM008 Jun 2016 #102
This isn't nonsense, it's a REAL thing that is HAPPENING pinebox Jun 2016 #31
Lol! zappaman Jun 2016 #81
Psssst! The FBI isn't subject to DU's Terms of Usage RufusTFirefly Jun 2016 #56
Can we compare calendars? I was counting six... brooklynite Jun 2016 #65
Yeah, somehow I thought it was Friday already ... long week n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #85
Its gonna be a looooong 5 days workinclasszero Jun 2016 #82
You got that right! apcalc Jun 2016 #126
Oopsie. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #148
And you can hide your head in the sand... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #149
Still a lot of bitter sore losers ... guess it will take a while to get over it n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #159
No damage has yet been attributed to Clinton's e-mails. n/t Orsino Jun 2016 #3
With 2,200 classified emails over an uncertified server, including 22 TS-SAP, that is not damaging? leveymg Jun 2016 #7
Was that released to unauthorized people who could do us harm? Don't think so. Hoyt Jun 2016 #10
Actually Bill Clinton's personal aide who had access to the server NWCorona Jun 2016 #12
It was released by unauthorized people in emails to her. It was a felony for HRC to not report them. leveymg Jun 2016 #13
Yup! Hillary had a legal obligation to fill out spillage reports on quite a few emails NWCorona Jun 2016 #17
We've been through this before, you can site code section over & over, doesn't make it a violation. Hoyt Jun 2016 #18
Please ask your interlocutor why he won't accept my "loser leaves DU" wager. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #26
The acts fit the statute cited. The facts are well-known. She violated the law. leveymg Jun 2016 #29
LOLOL grasswire Jun 2016 #35
You guys' interpretation of law and circumstances are wrong. I get how badly you want it to be true. Hoyt Jun 2016 #49
So how are those "guys'" interpretations wrong? Maybe you could be more specific...nt tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #54
Give us specific facts, not another condescending lecture, please. nt leveymg Jun 2016 #62
Read law, but not looking for a way to pin something on Clinton. My guess, Obama would not endorse Hoyt Jun 2016 #111
I have long expected he would follow the Deutch example. leveymg Jun 2016 #114
You just keep getting wilder with BS. Read what poster told you below -- No Intent, No Indictment. Hoyt Jun 2016 #115
You're still on the case with this, I see. brush Jun 2016 #72
omg. You don't read the newspapers do you? leveymg Jun 2016 #88
You don't watch TV news do you? brush Jun 2016 #91
I've said for a long time that I don't expect DOJ to actually indict her. I do believe the FBI leveymg Jun 2016 #93
Again, thank you for the laughs Gothmog Jun 2016 #105
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike Gothmog Jun 2016 #104
"Defense information" is much broader than classification... Orsino Jun 2016 #161
Allow me to correct this for you. Exilednight Jun 2016 #8
Yep. If disclosure is found to have occurred, as with Petraeus... Orsino Jun 2016 #11
Known to the intelligence agencies that originally classified the information. leveymg Jun 2016 #16
Except damage to Clinton's electability. n/t Herman4747 Jun 2016 #153
Show some respect for the dead, will you? randome Jun 2016 #4
And one should show respect for dead horses as well DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #6
Lol MFM008 Jun 2016 #103
The difference.. DCBob Jun 2016 #9
Actually, if you read the FBI warrant application, she had a security clearance, and she was author- leveymg Jun 2016 #23
I read the issue with providing classified information to his lover (security clearance or not) DCBob Jun 2016 #27
just wrong. grasswire Jun 2016 #38
The fact is she is not going to be indicted. DCBob Jun 2016 #41
say it three times... grasswire Jun 2016 #45
Same goes for you and the others praying for the indictment fairy . DCBob Jun 2016 #47
How can she avoid indictment? yourpaljoey Jun 2016 #15
LMFAO DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #21
It doesn't really matter if either of you guys stay or go. The larger questions are: jonno99 Jun 2016 #52
What will happen if a piano falls on my head? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #70
His AG, Loretta Lynch, will not indict now, even if the FBI recommends it to her. amandabeech Jun 2016 #96
I agree in part. leveymg Jun 2016 #100
I'm not sure if the President can pardon absent a trial or even an indictment. amandabeech Jun 2016 #107
The Presidential power of pardon is part of his Article II powers. He can pardon anyone, some argue leveymg Jun 2016 #112
Thank you for the nice summary. I' ve been off line for months. amandabeech Jun 2016 #124
Paul was in NZ for a while leveymg Jun 2016 #155
Perhaps many DUers will come to visit! n/t amandabeech Jun 2016 #168
I don't want to make another enemy. They are legion by now. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #132
None of that's going to happen. The news of the enquiry being concluded . . . brush Jun 2016 #141
good point, my pal joey. grasswire Jun 2016 #40
Cited article doesn't match your OP at all. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #22
Share with us how they differ? leveymg Jun 2016 #24
1) your headline is FAKE 2) and as usual your "spin" doesn't match the article. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #39
This isn't LBN. It's analysis of a news article and a document. I didn't "fake" anything. leveymg Jun 2016 #73
Of course this isn't LBN. Doesn't make your headline any less fake. Nor does it make emulatorloo Jun 2016 #89
We already know a vast number of facts the FBI will confirm because the State Dept, CIA and NSA have leveymg Jun 2016 #95
The stuff under the *** doesn't appear in the article at all...interesting. sharp_stick Jun 2016 #61
You seem to have the same reading issue as the guy above you. leveymg Jun 2016 #75
It's pathetic, that's all sharp_stick Jun 2016 #76
Pathetic. Why is it that you can't point to a single factual assertion that is any way in error? leveymg Jun 2016 #83
honestly, projecting "reading comprehension issues" on to others is not a winner for you. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #101
As I continue to say, if you have a problem with facts, correct me. Since you don't, that's telling leveymg Jun 2016 #108
Others in the threads are correcting you on the facts. You just deflect emulatorloo Jun 2016 #110
Give me one example. leveymg Jun 2016 #116
Gothmog's got some good stuff for you. Which you deal with by deflecting. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #119
Gothmog's full of empty bluster and ad hominem attacks. See #123, 129 below leveymg Jun 2016 #130
Your article guts and disproves your amusing theory on the need for culpable mental state Gothmog Jun 2016 #68
Once this is all over with and the FBI clears her of any illegal activity.. DCBob Jun 2016 #34
Do they have abstinence booths at adult film conventions? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #36
Ha! DCBob Jun 2016 #37
Do they serve liquor at temperance meetings? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #43
Are you kidding. Anyone who is posting these lies and innuendos MariaThinks Jun 2016 #51
Well, I guess I'm safe then. The FBI report certainly won't "clear her of any illegal leveymg Jun 2016 #98
Hanging on to the bitter end. DCBob Jun 2016 #99
Your analysis is totally wrong yet again-this article guts your theory that no mens rea is required Gothmog Jun 2016 #53
Petraeus was convicted of violating Sec. 1924, which requires specific intent. He was charged w/793 leveymg Jun 2016 #77
Petraeus signed over a dozen NDA or confidentiality agreements Gothmog Jun 2016 #86
The Libertarian candidate for vice president and former director of the criminal division of ... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #78
This is basic criminal law that is covered in the first your crim law class Gothmog Jun 2016 #87
When all you have is an animus toward Hillary Clinton and a failed candidate the whole world.... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #90
The Espionage Act is not a strict liability law and so no indictment will be forthcoming Gothmog Jun 2016 #97
That is entirely about Sec. 1924, which requires intent, but in Sec. 793 "gross negligence" applies leveymg Jun 2016 #123
Laypersons are so amusing when they try to make legal arguments Gothmog Jun 2016 #125
Again, the officials who actually decide these issues disagree with your vox.com "expert" leveymg Jun 2016 #129
LOL DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #142
Have someone read that material posted and explain it to you Gothmog Jun 2016 #164
im so tired of propaganda in a dem forum. eom artyteacher Jun 2016 #55
You do realize that the stuff under the *** is not in the politico story sharp_stick Jun 2016 #58
I'll repeat what I said to a couple people above. This isn't LBN, it's analysis of an FBI document leveymg Jun 2016 #79
so did that woman who slept with Petraeus steal the recording? Article says he recorded it and it wa Sunlei Jun 2016 #63
June 16th Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #80
Bernie is tired of this crap workinclasszero Jun 2016 #84
FBI isn't tired. 840high Jun 2016 #92
The search for the Indictment Fairy continues. JoePhilly Jun 2016 #94
Wall street crimes are a boogeyman, single payer is a unicorn, & FBI investigations involve a fairy. think Jun 2016 #106
I realized last night that the last time Clintons were president Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #118
+1 I'm never buying into that NEW DEMOCRAT/Clinton cult again, Voice for Peace bobthedrummer Jun 2016 #120
yes, that was another score... the first black president indeed Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #122
lolz you guys obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #113
great stuff, keep it coming Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #117
Exactly WHO or WHAT was damage by Hillary's emails? napi21 Jun 2016 #128
No actual damage isn't a defense under the Espionage Act. Those who raised it were convicted. leveymg Jun 2016 #133
I understand your point on the DUI. That's true, it's against the law to drive under the influence. napi21 Jun 2016 #139
It is against the law, however, to place classified information on an uncertified server. leveymg Jun 2016 #158
This message was self-deleted by its author LexVegas Jun 2016 #137
I've been here a decade longer than you, and fully intend to remain for another decade. Delete yours leveymg Jun 2016 #138
Cut, paste, glue together with lots of words Sparkly Jun 2016 #144
Welcome to the Brave New World of blogging. No ink-stained wretches, just greasy keys, leveymg Jun 2016 #147
Yeah right! jcgoldie Jun 2016 #145
Thanks for a long, thoughtful OP, leveymg. senz Jun 2016 #146
Thanks for that. leveymg Jun 2016 #150
I like that "Ronan" very apt analogy. gordianot Jun 2016 #152
Well most of us are fed up with all the nasty comments senz Jun 2016 #154
That whole thing is a flat out lie or a misunderstanding of the law jzodda Jun 2016 #156
So you think the emails about drone strikes were the only ones on her server? pdsimdars Jun 2016 #165
Yes that's correct... jzodda Jun 2016 #167
Five days nt Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #162
This paragraph sums up Clinton to me pdsimdars Jun 2016 #166
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Newly released FBI docume...»Reply #0