It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Director: Petraeus Leaks Were Much Worse Than Clinton Email Mess

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
FBI Director: Petraeus Leaks Were Much Worse Than Clinton Email Mess

So yesterday, the FBI director testified in front of the Republican Congress about why he didn't recommend an indictment for Hillary. Well during this testimony he compared Hillary's transgressions to Gen Petraeus' leaks and said that Petraeus was FAR worse than Hillary.


The two cases are nothing alike, Comey testified Thursday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Clinton used a private email server for some of her official business as secretary of state, which may have compromised sensitive information. By contrast, Petraeus, who resigned in disgrace from the CIA in 2012, knowingly shared classified information ― war strategies, intelligence capabilities, conversations with President Barack Obama ― with Paula Broadwell, his lover and biographer.

“The Petraeus case, to my mind, illustrates perfectly the kind of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute,” Comey said.

Petraeus initially lied to the FBI about his violations, but then confessed to them as part of a plea agreement. The Justice Department ultimately charged him with a misdemeanor violation, despite the FBI recommending he be prosecuted.

“In that case, you had vast quantities of highly classified information … not only shared with someone without authority to have it, but we found it in a search warrant, hidden under the insulation in his attic, and then he lied to us about it during the investigation,” Comey said. “So you have obstruction of justice. You have intentional misconduct. And a vast quantity of classified information. He admitted it was the wrong thing to do.”

Comey later said he misspoke, and that investigators found classified materials in Petraeus’ desk, not in the attic insulation. (So what was in the attic?)


Keep in mind that Petraeus only got a misdemeanor charge for this, AND Comey still thinks he should have been prosecuted. So to people still holding out that Hillary was guilty here, this is the FBI director not only saying you are wrong but giving an example of a WORSE situation where someone got off with a slap on the wrist. In other words, if you want to indict Hillary no matter what still, you best be yelling for Petraeus' head too.




posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Patraeus had his clearance stripped, his career ruined and will be on parole the rest of his life. Clinton got nada and she got hacked by the Russians and guccifer.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
It depends on if you think intentionally sharing info with ONE person he trusted, is worse than accidentally sharing information with ANYONE with the skills to get it.
Anyone not blinded by partisanship can clearly see which was worse.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

No it doesn't depend on anything really. These were Comey's words, not some random jackass off of the streets. This is the guy in charge of the investigation. If you are going to argue with him then you are just arguing with reality.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Just another he said . she said , he did it . she did it , thread aimed against the right of course.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

And Comey just spelled out why that was the case, or did you not read the OP and just hit reply after reading the title?



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Doesnt matter if his violation was worse... it really doesnt.

She was careless with Classified material allowed her lawyers without a clearance go over all the emails... they dont know if she was hacked... which means it could have been much worse than Patreus.

He never said she definitely was not hacked, he also never said she was innocent... he said they did not have enough evidence, so he felt no prosecutor would go to trial with the case based on what they had.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Yea sorry I'm trying to bring a balanced perspective that disagrees with the rah rah hate Hillary cheer leading that chiefly goes around here.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've read about both cases. Both were careless with classified info, both shared it with people without clearances and both tried to cover it up, but only one got punished.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Apparently you didn't read enough if you think that the description you gave right there sums them up enough to compare them. Seeing as how Comey EXPLICITLY said the Petraeus and Hillary cases are vastly differently and all. I think he would know what he's talking about over some random guy on a conspiracy theory website.
edit on 8-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol. You have nothing to counter with. Both are wrong but this admin is so corrupt it can't bring itself to admit one of its members was wrong.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

I have Comey's words to counter with (which is what I did). Clearly you don't trust Comey, but that is your issue, not mine.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
Patraeus had his clearance stripped, his career ruined and will be on parole the rest of his life. Clinton got nada and she got hacked by the Russians and guccifer.


Do you realize the difference in that though? Paetraeus willingly gave classified information to someone, in the other case it was hacked. There's a clear difference. Intent.

The fact much of Clinton's info isn't in the public sphere means it can be weighed in this manner. EDIT: I will say, they are setting themselves up by saying this. This might be an initial move in a larger chess game. If Russia or Trump leaks anything right now, Clinton is cooked. COOKED...and Id bet many more heavy hitting politicos: END EDIT

I personally think analyzing the CF foundation may have shown the same thing, but letting the cat out of the bag and prosecuting would likely bring down way too many people. I did a thread on a supposed leaker, who claims being tied to the CF/Email investigation, and even if its just a troll or whoever, their information seems either spot on, or that it could definitely be correct, when looking at what is available in the public sphere.

www.youtube.com...

The entire government is a joke. The only thing that is not obvious is whether Benghazi (given more time was spent on it than 9/11)and the e-mail focus, is a misdirection, or is it something else, "going against the handlers"-type of situation.

More than anything its clear high school politics is being played by the strongest power brokers in Washington currently, whether its entirely to cover up and misdirect, or two parties butting heads remains for conjecture.

Expecting anything besides the quid pro quo this election season and in the new administration is a delusion though.
edit on 8-7-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cant really say it was worse, becuase the fbi could not rule to what extent her incompetence gave access to classified information.

The key was that they were able to get proof against Petraeus , and he himself owned up to doing it where hillary denied ,denied , and denied.

Doesnt mean she wasnt guilty of much greater crimes just that they couldnt get the evidence they needed.

Kind of like saying that petreus was worse than Al capone because they only charged Capone with irs accounting charges.

As for petraeus only getting a misdemeanor , it shows the same rules for them are not necessarily the same rules for the rest of us.

Much like bill meeting with lynch during an ongoing criminal investigation against hillary .
edit on 48731America/ChicagoFri, 08 Jul 2016 09:48:46 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42


Doesnt mean she wasnt guilty of much greater crimes just that the couldnt get the evidence they needed.


Precisely this. Patraeus gave the info to people that aren't supposed to have it, and admitted as much. Fighting admitted guilt and fighting denied guilt is too different things. There's also intent. Hillary was hacked, the other willingly gave it away.

Now, it's very likely Hillary did just as bad or worse, but given they decided her case was against national security there's no way that can be proven. Prosecuting her would have NS implications. The real weak point now is whether or not Russia or Trump leaks. Trump will want to because it likely ensures him a win. Russia could because it ensures Trump, and Trump is better for Russia than Hillary.

Worst case scenario which just popped into my head: Trump leaks and subsequently gets charged for national security violations, Hillary & Trump are indicted. Obama stays in office. Holy #### the prophecy is real. Just kidding....or am I?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Comey did an excellent job of explaining why Hillary's case is different than others that have gone to court.

The main differences being obstruction of justice and intent.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
This has nothing to do with Hillary's crimes.
Hers were different, agreed.
What she did was still wrong and dangerous to national security.
She lied.
The reasons she did what she did, as will come out with the investigation of the Clinton Foundation, are worse, when you consider the corruption involved.

Arguing Petraeus was different has nothing at all to do with rationalizing that somehow Hillary is innocent.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

The DNC was hacked by the Russians not Clinton. And the retarded Guccifer. That bastard lied and got everybody all worked up and it turns out he never hacked Clinton. Like I had said all along.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah




Arguing Petraeus was different has nothing at all to do with rationalizing that somehow Hillary is innocent.


When you cant defend her for what she did Hillybots must find a way to compensate for her history of lying, incompetence , and blatant disregard for ethics and the law.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o
It doesn't matter if he trusted her. He actually broke the law deliberately.
You guys will never win this argument.
What Clinton did was no where near what he did.
Oh and your right. Anyone can see this. And you're not partisan at all. LOL.
What a joke.

edit on 782016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join