Skip to comments.How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time
Posted on 10/14/2016 12:17:25 PM PDT by Vendome
Interesting to note that Paula Broadwell "Was Not Charged with a Single Crime"
Here's why: Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and FBI Director James B. Comey listened as prosecutors did a mock run-through of the governments case, a preview of how they would present their evidence to Petraeuss lawyers in order, they hoped, to force a guilty plea.
The presentation included felony charges: lying to the FBI and violating a section of the Espionage Act. A conviction on either carried potentially years in prison.
They were also considering bringing the same charges against Petraeuss biographer and former mistress, Paula Broadwell.
The government would never file those charges. Not everyone at Justice shared the prosecutors confidence, and lawyers for Petraeus and Broadwell separately pushed back hard, saying they would fight and beat the charges being considered. Moreover, with its mix of sex and government secrets, a trial promised to be an uncomfortably tawdry affair, one some in the government as well as defense lawyers preferred to avoid.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Because there was sex involved?
What? They were going to ask about details like when they got it on, where they did it, favorite positions, etc?
Gimme a break
Because his wife was given a position by Obama and he’s a hard core NWO globalist democrat?
That’s just the first thing that comes to mind.
Wasn’t he stripped of his security clearance and fined?
If that was done to Hillary.. she could not serve as President... that and the sitting President being aware of the email server... would have caused a loss of confidence in our government... thus... no charges.
Here is mt theory. Patraeus was a threat. He knew way too much about weapons supplied to the AlQaeda affiliates in Libya and many other career enders for higher ups including hillary. Broadwell was paid to stalk him and bring him down? I understand she has government clearance anyway. Therefore, If you have an undercover agent on a sting, you don’t ever prosecute that agent. This one seems pretty clear to me. Where is she today? Government?
If you play in a cesspool you get crap on your hands.
Like your tag line. Unfortunately, not so many are aware of the dirty details of his treason.
“Like your tag line. Unfortunately, not so many are aware of the dirty details of his treason.”
of course they aren’t. Fox is busy bashing Trump and promoting blatant lies and smearing from paid liars. There is no other media to do it. If you ever watched an MSM news cast it is pro hillary montage and childish stories about ling ling the baby panda.
My understanding of the Petraeus issue was that he had a top secret security clearance, but his biographer Broadwell (who was also a military officer) also had a security clearance. The problem was that her security clearance did not match exactly with the information that Petraeus shared with her. That information was mostly verbal and hand written notes of security meetings which was to be background for the biography. During their time together, they developed an affair, which created other problems because they were both military officers.
The bottom line is, the classified information that Petraeus shared technically violated the law in this situation so that is why the govt wanted to charge him with multiple felonies. But the fact is Broadwell never used any of the classified information in the biography, nor forwarded it to anyone else, so that is why she was never charged. So essentially you have classified information being exchanged between 2 people, both of which have security clearances, but not technically valid for the information they exchanged. This makes proving the case difficult for the govt and is why they went after a misdemeanor confession for only Petraeus and got it.
This was probably the correct course of action, but when you compare this with how Hitlery handled classified info, what she has done is 1000x worse and she got off scott free. This just shows that the Rule of Law only applies to Repugs, and not Dumbcrats.
Yes she could serve if stripped of a clearance now. The president is top of the food chain in clearance world. There is nobody who can legally decide he may not be allowed access to some things. And that’s the way it should be, except for those who worship the cult of intelligence.
The constitution does not require the president to pass a security clearance.
But Broadwell had no need to know, so she had no business getting the material in the first place. Plus how many soldiers under Petraeus’s command have been prosecuted for less? Petreaus and Broadwell should be in jail, and Hillary should be right next to them.
It was hot in Philadelphia in September 1787, and no air conditioning. They were rushing to finish the Constitution and forgot to include the provision about passing a security clearance when listing the requirements for being elected President.
Did not know that...find that kind of amazing
I’m guessing someone’s got the goods on James B. Comey... Maybe he thinks he can do a ‘petraeus’... He’s wrong - - - it’s not gonna work.
If that was done to Hillary.. she could not serve as President...
Where does it say the President needs a security clearance?
Get real. The only way to stop the Hildebeest is at the ballot box.
What a steaming pile of s#!t he turned out to be.
Compared to Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus is George Washington.
Wonder if the real reason is that they didn’t want the Lebanese Kelley sisters brought up into the news cycle again because of where those two’s trails lead.
Why is everyone pinging me on stuff from 3 and 4 years ago?
Is FR messed up?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.