FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters

It turns out that not only did former CIA Director Petraeus share classified info with his mistress, he shared it with reporters as well.

The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.

Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."

I did not follow this story much when it was in the news, so I don't have a lot of background details. From reading this article, it seems as though the FBI felt that Petraeus got off easy on where they felt more serious charges were warranted:

The affidavit could also revive questions about whether Petraeus and other senior officials are treated too leniently in investigations about mishandling classified information. The FBI submission says investigators were pursuing potential felony violations of the Espionage Act provision barring unlawful communication of national defense information and retaining classified information without permission.

The misdemeanor plea deal reached with Petraeus after intense negotiations left some in the FBI and some prosecutors angry that the former general had gotten off too easy, the Washington Post reported earlier this year.

Eric Holder, who was at the Justice Department at the time, was the government's lead prosecutor. This was his response:

Nonetheless, some on Capitol Hill complained that the Justice Department brought any charges against the widely respected general. At a Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reception last year, a journalist asked former Attorney General Eric Holder to justify why Petraeus did not face felony charges in the case.

Holder, who oversaw the negotiations with Petraeus' lawyers, did not go into the specifics made public this week but he denied that the general's fame and popularity drove the decision to settle for a misdemeanor.

"There were some unique things that existed in that case that would have made prosecution at the felony level — and conviction at the felony level — very, very, very problematic," the former attorney general said last October. "In some ways, the thing that seems to distinguish the case from other resolutions is the nature of the person, the position of the person, the lawyering done for or on behalf of the person. But I can honestly tell you that was not the reason why that case was resolved in the way that it was. A felony? That would have been hard — beyond hard."

There he is telling us that someone's position within the hierarchy makes a difference in how one is treated by said hierarchy. Some are more equal than others, and don't you ever forget it.

politico.com

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
It turns out that not only did former CIA Director Petraeus share classified info with his mistress, he shared it with reporters as well.

The investigation that led CIA Director David Petraeus to resign and ultimately plead guilty to a criminal charge of mishandling classified information also uncovered evidence that he discussed highly classified information with journalists, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by POLITICO.

Requesting a search warrant for Petraeus' Arlington, Virginia home in 2013, an FBI agent told a federal magistrate the agency had two audio recordings in which the retired four-star Army general spoke with reporters about matters that authorities believed were "top secret."

I did not follow this story much when it was in the news, so I don't have a lot of background details. From reading this article, it seems as though the FBI felt that Petraeus got off easy on where they felt more serious charges were warranted:

The affidavit could also revive questions about whether Petraeus and other senior officials are treated too leniently in investigations about mishandling classified information. The FBI submission says investigators were pursuing potential felony violations of the Espionage Act provision barring unlawful communication of national defense information and retaining classified information without permission.

The misdemeanor plea deal reached with Petraeus after intense negotiations left some in the FBI and some prosecutors angry that the former general had gotten off too easy, the Washington Post reported earlier this year.

Eric Holder, who was at the Justice Department at the time, was the government's lead prosecutor. This was his response:

Nonetheless, some on Capitol Hill complained that the Justice Department brought any charges against the widely respected general. At a Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reception last year, a journalist asked former Attorney General Eric Holder to justify why Petraeus did not face felony charges in the case.

Holder, who oversaw the negotiations with Petraeus' lawyers, did not go into the specifics made public this week but he denied that the general's fame and popularity drove the decision to settle for a misdemeanor.

"There were some unique things that existed in that case that would have made prosecution at the felony level — and conviction at the felony level — very, very, very problematic," the former attorney general said last October. "In some ways, the thing that seems to distinguish the case from other resolutions is the nature of the person, the position of the person, the lawyering done for or on behalf of the person. But I can honestly tell you that was not the reason why that case was resolved in the way that it was. A felony? That would have been hard — beyond hard."

There he is telling us that someone's position within the hierarchy makes a difference in how one is treated by said hierarchy. Some are more equal than others, and don't you ever forget it.

politico.com

So if he had just kept it "mysteriously lost" in the closet and deleted it from his hard drives would it all have been good?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That reason, that it would be hard, makes no sense given the criteria a person must meet to violate espionage statutes. A government employee (ill dig up specifics in a bot and link it) shared top secret info with a reporter and stated he turned over all of his emails during the investigation (except one email) and got a felony conviction and 3 years in prison.

I am sick and tired of these top people being exempt from the law. I'm also more and more in favor of the DOJ being a truly independent entity that cannot be affected by politics. Maybe make the head of the DOJ an elected position?

Or make it the same as law enforcement during an internal investigation. You either cooperate or you are guilty of the accused actions. Government employees should not be able to sidestep IG investigations.

originally posted by: TinFoilSuit


So if he had just kept it "mysteriously lost" in the closet and deleted it from his hard drives would it all have been good?

It apparently works if your name is reichesfuhrer... err Clinton.

But I can honestly tell you that was not the reason why that case was resolved in the way that it was. A felony? That would have been hard — beyond hard.

I believe he is correct. There has to be some very specific extenuating circumstances that must exist for cases to be taken to a felony-level.

A former senior FBI official told POLITICO that when it comes to mishandling of classified information the Justice Department has traditionally turned down prosecution of all but the most clear-cut cases. “If you look at the history of what they pursued, you really had to have a slam-bam case that met all the elements,” said the ex-official, who asked not to be named. Statistics support the view that prosecutions in the area are sparing.

Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. Of the six where charges were filed, all the defendants apparently pled guilty, the data show

www.politico.com...

Take the time to read the whole piece. It does actually relate to Hillary's current scandal, but provides an overview of the topic in general and shows how these sorts of cases are usually handled.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am sick and tired of these top people being exempt from the law.

Too right!

This is the major issue I have with this two tiered justice system. Equal protection under the law ought to mean equal prosecution as well, but we have countless examples of that not being the case once you get to a certain level in the federal government.

I've been looking for news articles on other cases of mishandling of classified information and have found several examples of much less damaging breaches that what Hillary is known to be responsible for in which people much lower on the totem pole have received jail terms even though there is no intent upon their part to disclose classified information, or in several cases, there was no actual breach.

Hillary's server was online running windows remote desktop listening for connections. How stupid is that?

a reply to: introvert

its also annoying when ex officials lie / intentionally mislead. There are 2 words that come into play when looking at criminal statutes and the elements of a crime - and and or.


Examples -
If a law says - in order to be guilty of careless and imprudent driving a driver must:
A - be driving in excess of 40 mph or more over the posted speed limit; and
B - driving the vehicle in a manner that places the public at large of risk of imminent serious danger.

- The driver must meet both elements A and B in order to be in violation of the stature.

Example #2 -
If a law says - in order to be guilty of careless and imprudent driving a driver must:
A - be driving in excess of 40 mph or more over the posted speed limit; or
B - driving the vehicle in a manner that places the public at large of risk of imminent serious danger.

- The driver must violate only one of the listed elements to be in violation of the statute.

For espionage and classified info release the requirement is "gross negligence". Intent is not a factor in terms of required to break that particular law. The sensitivity of the info coupled with the release, who it was released to and the possible repercussions if the info falls into the wrong hands are considered in terms of years possible in prison / size of fine, etc.

There would have been no issues pursuing felony level charges in his case, and given his rank it should have been easier since he can not claim "he didnt know" what he was doing was not only wrong, but also knows the possible ramifications if the info falls into the wrong hands.

With that being said what Hillary did was much much worse, she is on record saying she understands the classification system as well as signing the NDA form and involving others to cover up her actions.

She must be indicted since Petraus was.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Some of the espionage statutes do not require any intent but gross negligence. Based on what I know and have seen its one of the only laws that does not require intent.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I know, man. I grokked the concept immediately. Means she shouldn't get away with calling an "oopsie."

But she somehow has Jedi mind tricked masses of people and the media is helping her along.



It has also surfaced that there was more to the sharing of information with his mistress than was first reported:

FBI agents found hundreds of classified documents on Paula Broadwell’s home computers in Charlotte during their investigation into her relationship with then-CIA Director David Petraeus, according to newly unsealed FBI documents obtained by the Observer.

More than 300 of those documents were classified as secret, according to a 2013 FBI affidavit accompanying the agency’s request to search Petraeus’ home in Arlington, Va.

The documents, which were unsealed Tuesday by the U.S. District Court in Eastern Virginia, offer new details of the sweeping federal investigation into the relationship between Broadwell, a Charlotte author, and Petraeus, a highly decorated military commander, the subject of Broadwell’s book as well as her former lover.

Charlotte Observer

Broadwell possessed a security clearance, just not one specific to the information Petraeus shared with her, and she then had classified information on a non-approved system:

From 2003 to 2012, Broadwell had security clearance to handle classified information, the affidavit says. But that came with the understanding that she not unlawfully remove the information “from authorized storage facilities” and not store the classified information “in unauthorized locations.”

This bit stood out to me:

Broadwell, the author of Petraeus’ biography, was never charged. Legal experts say her role as a journalist made any prosecution problematic.

It seems to me that there is something fishy about that, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

There's a lot of information in this article and it would behoove anyone with an interest in this case to read all the way through it and consider what it contains. It ends thusly:

In the years since, Broadwell has apologized for the affair and says she has attempted to rebuild her marriage and has focused on charitable issues such as returning veterans and “Wounded Warriors.” She has also started a foundation to examine gender bias in the media.

‘I’m the first to admit I screwed up,” Broadwell recently told the New York Times. “... But how long does a person pay for their mistake?’

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I never understood the reporter and charges arguments. Contrary to popular belief the Pentagon paper case never established immunity to reporters who publish classified info. The 2 reporters in that case were in fact charged and during the beginning of their trial the prosecutor screwed something up resulting in a mistrial. The prosecutor never refiled the charges.