Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If so, I'd like to hear those differences. We already have a case to set a precedent. Not only that, but Hillary had a much greater amount of classified information.
If so, I'd like to hear those differences. We already have a case to set a precedent. Not only that, but Hillary had a much greater amount of classified information.
FACT: Experts Have Debunked The Comparison -- Petraeus Knowingly Mishandled Classified Documents, Whereas Clinton Had Authorization To Use Private Email, And There's No Evidence She Knowingly Emailed Classified Information
Petraeus Pled Guilty To Violating 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unlawfully And Knowingly" Moving Classified Materials "With Intent To Retain Such Documents ... At Unauthorized Locations." Petraeus pled guilty to one count of violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924:
Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924. (U.S. v. Petraeus, Bill of Information, 3/3/15)
In other words, the difference is (so the argument goes) Petraeus actually knew that he was retaining classified documents in unauthorized locations, aka between his mistress' crotch. In Hillary's case, she was authorized to use personal email and it has to be proven that she had actual knowledge (not "she should have" or "she must have" known) of each document's classified status. Whether she gets into trouble or not at the end of the day, the crime that Petraeus was charged with is different from that in Hillary's case.
In other words, the difference is (so the argument goes) Petraeus actually knew that he was retaining classified documents in unauthorized locations, aka between his mistress' crotch. In Hillary's case, she was authorized to use personal email and it has to be proven that she had actual knowledge (not "she should have" or "she must have" known) of each document's classified status. Whether she gets into trouble or not at the end of the day, the crime that Petraeus was charged with is different from that in Hillary's case.
Mick
She was not authorized to do what she did, that is a plain out lie. And she absolutely knew what was classified or not, if she didn't she is dumbest SoS ever.
In other words, the difference is (so the argument goes) Petraeus actually knew that he was retaining classified documents in unauthorized locations, aka between his mistress' crotch. In Hillary's case, she was authorized to use personal email and it has to be proven that she had actual knowledge (not "she should have" or "she must have" known) of each document's classified status. Whether she gets into trouble or not at the end of the day, the crime that Petraeus was charged with is different from that in Hillary's case.
Mick
Well that should be the end of this thread.
...walks out of the room without clicking on the subscribe button
She was not authorized to do what she did, that is a plain out lie. And she absolutely knew what was classified or not, if she didn't she is dumbest SoS ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
bwahahahahahaha...Yeah a plain out lie ends the thread eh? What despicable people there are who defend that pos.
Yes, Hillary Clinton predicted the future and new something would become classified a year and a half after she read it
As for authorization, yes, she was authorized to use it. Thats not a lie, you simply dont believe it. And your belief doesnt make something a lie.
In other words, the difference is (so the argument goes) Petraeus actually knew that he was retaining classified documents in unauthorized locations, aka between his mistress' crotch. In Hillary's case, she was authorized to use personal email and it has to be proven that she had actual knowledge (not "she should have" or "she must have" known) of each document's classified status. Whether she gets into trouble or not at the end of the day, the crime that Petraeus was charged with is different from that in Hillary's case.
Mick
I'm sorry, but Media Matters isn't exactly an unbiased source when it comes to reporting politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
