Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rktman
Gen. David Petraeus may be on the short list to be our next secretary of state, but his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, led to him being convicted of mishandling classified information; Broadwell had access to journals of Petraeus that contained sensitive material.

Is it not true that Broadwell also had a Secret or Top Secret clearance at the time? She was given material that she was not authorized to have. Is that not so?

The infraction was a thimble of water compared to an ocean in the degree of mishandling classified information. The scale and scope of damage done by Hillary has yet to be documented.

In my opinion Petraeus was persecuted by the Democrats selective enforcement of the law for political purposes.

7 posted on 11/30/2016 5:29:57 AM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: olezip

The FACT is that, clearance or not, Broadwell had NO NEED TO KNOW. And THAT is one of the prime requirements for viewing classified information. NOT a thimble, IMO.


14 posted on 11/30/2016 5:48:16 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: olezip

The way I recall my security clearances is that even if you have a high level clearance, if you don’t need to know it, you don’t need to see it. Pretty simple. Guess some people understand that more than others.


15 posted on 11/30/2016 5:51:28 AM PST by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: olezip

Whether or not Broadwell had a security clearance is completely immaterial. She had a clearance by virtue of her status as an Army Reserve officer, not because of her civilian status as Petraeus’ biographer. She had NO Need to Know the information that Petraeus gave her.

According to court records, “Three days before he switched careers [retired from the Army to become Director of the CIA], Petraeus gave Broadwell [his mistress] eight notebooks he’d compiled that contained highly classified information and other secrets, including the identities of covert officers, intelligence capabilities, quotes from high-level meetings of the National Security Council, and notes about Petraeus’s discussions with President Obama.” Petraeus was allowed to plead guilty to a MISDEMEANOR charge of mishandling classified information, which doesn’t sound like he was persecuted at all.

By comparison, Navy PO1 Kristian Saucier was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice, found guilty and sentenced to one year in federal prison. So who was really persecuted and who got off very lightly?


25 posted on 11/30/2016 6:32:35 AM PST by ManHunter (You can run, but you'll only die tired... Army snipers: Reach out and touch someone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: olezip

Doesn’t matter. Petraeus knew he was wrong. He gave classified material to a person without a need to know. He broke the law. Period. End of story. He got off easier than any of his soldiers would have for doing the same thing. Just because Hillary got away with more does not in any way justify minimizing the General’s misdeeds. By law he isn’t even eligible for a clearance which makes him ineligible to be SecState.


37 posted on 11/30/2016 9:27:03 AM PST by sean327 (God created all men equal, then some become Marines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson