He had a midlife crisis and had an affair with a pretty girl, who was not a spy. He acted stupidly and was punished for it. He won't do anything like that again. He has decades of pertinent experience, and he's not a political hack. Trump would do well to rehabilitate him and make him Secretary of State.

A military-toned cabinet is much better than a crony-capitalist-toned one.

Once people have been punished, that need not exclude them from ever serving again.

Just because somebody has not been caught in some sort of compromising position does not mean that man is suitable for leadership.

He has decades of pertinent experience, and he's not a political hack.

If you don't think Generals that obtained senior commands are political creatures,you don't understand much about General officers.

And please don't compare him to sinkboy. I don't even want to have write the differences.

Petraeus is just another criminal awaiting his reward from The Donald.

The message is, crime pays in the Trump administration, so keep at it and excel in your criminal activities, and you'll be rewarded!

How is it even legal for someone like him to hold a security clearance?

It seems the elite, e.g. Hillary, operate on a different set of rules. He should not be eligible to have a clearance.

On Monday, Trump talked with David Petraeus, the former Army general, and director of the CIA who was convicted of a misdemeanor after he shared a “massive amount” of classified information with his girlfriend and biographer, Paula Broadwell.

As a mitigating factor, Paula Broadwell was a military intelligence officer who was a Major and approved for promotion to Lt. Colonel and who held a Top Secret clearance, but did not have the proper access authorization or need to know the material to which she was given access.

In contrast, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning delivered a trove of classified information to people with no clearance with the deliberate intent to have it published to the world.

It seems the elite, e.g. Hillary, operate on a different set of rules.

Yeah,I thought we were voting for Trump to end all the insider "reach-arounds". Boy was *I* fooled!

He should not be eligible to have a clearance.

Exactly,and without a security clearance he can't be hired to dump the trash can in the room that will be his office.

Bleep a bunch of freaking Generals! What needs to be done is start appointing retired career Special Forces Sergeant Majors as Sec of Defense and Sec of State. They know where the rubber meets the road,and damn few of them can be corrupted.

In contrast, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning delivered a trove of classified information to people with no clearance with the deliberate intent to have it published to the world.

Is he/she/it/multiple choice being considered for Sec of State?

Is he/she/it/multiple choice being considered for Sec of State?

No. But the article says,

Consider the response to similar behavior engaged in by Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning.

Politicians and the establishment media have called for Assange and Snowden to be executed. Manning received a 35 year sentence for violating the Espionage Act.

The mentioned individuals do not give a good comparison. Snowden and Manning released stashes of info to people with no clearance to publish it online. Assange publishes information given to him by others.

Petraeus improperly gave access to his biographer/lover. She was a military intelligence officer with a Top Secret clearance, but without the requisite access authorization or need to know for the information in question. She was not releasing the information to the world.

Petraeus is guilty of an offense, and his act was knowing and intentional, but quite different from Snowden and Manning.

Petraeus improperly gave access to his biographer/lover. She was a military intelligence officer with a Top Secret clearance, but without the requisite access authorization or need to know for the information in question.She was not releasing the information to the world.

Not YET,anyhow. From what I remember reading at the time it was a big issue,she was writing a book about her stud muffin,so it is no unreasonable to assume at least some of the information would be in the book.

Petraeus is guilty of an offense, and his act was knowing and intentional, but quite different from Snowden and Manning.

I don't know if you were ever in the military or not,but it seems unlikely or you would understand how a senior General Officer doing something like this is MUCH more serious that some snowflake Spec 4 doing it. Petraeus has NO defense whatsoever. Nor does he have any sort of justification other than trying to take a bath in personal glory.

On the other hand,Manning has a couple of defenses,one being that he/she/multiple choice is a freaking nutcase that thought he/she/it was doing the moral thing. On top of that,you can't blame Manning for being given that level of access to highly classified information.

A senior General can't really use those defenses,can he?

If you don't think Generals that obtained senior commands are political creatures,you don't understand much about General officers.

I didn't say he's not a political creature. I said he's not a political hack.

Petraeus was a good general.

Not YET,anyhow. From what I remember reading at the time it was a big issue,she was writing a book about her stud muffin,so it is no unreasonable to assume at least some of the information would be in the book.

The information was for background and was never inclusion in the book. Te book was published before the scandal. The proof is in the book, (All In: The Education of General David Petraeus).

That does not excuse Petraeus. Paula Broadwell was not authorized to see the information. He knowingly put stuff in her possession that belonged in a SCF.

I am of the opinion that he should not have a clearance and should not be Secretary of State for that reason.

Petraeus is guilty of an offense, and his act was knowing and intentional, but quite different from Snowden and Manning.

Yes. He pleaded guilty and was convicted.

I don't know if you were ever in the military or not,but it seems unlikely or you would understand how a senior General Officer doing something like this is MUCH more serious that some snowflake Spec 4 doing it. Petraeus has NO defense whatsoever. Nor does he have any sort of justification other than trying to take a bath in personal glory.

nolu chan, USN (Ret.) Any actual damage from the actions of Petraeus was minimal, but he knowingly and intentionally let an unauthorized person have access to very highly classified information. He did the deed and had no defense.

As a senior general, Petraeus' actions cannot be overlooked. He must be held accountable.

Aside from taking a bath in personal glory, there was doing the horizontal bop with Paula Broadwell.

On the other hand,Manning has a couple of defenses,one being that he/she/multiple choice is a freaking nutcase that thought he/she/it was doing the moral thing. On top of that,you can't blame Manning for being given that level of access to highly classified information.

Manning does not have any legal defense. He may be a nut case, but he knows right from wrong. Manning has mitigating circumstances to be considered at sentencing. Manning delivered the motherlode to Wikileaks for publication to the world. Manning may have done what he thought was the moral thing, but his actions also show that he knew what he was doing was an illegal thing for which he coud be, and was, prosecuted.

A senior General can't really use those defenses,can he?

Petraeus pleaded guilty. He did not use any defense. He had mitigating information for criminal sentencing. That is not to imply that he should again be given access to the most highly sensitive compartmented information.

In reality, senior officers get away with many things just by RHIP.

btw, on another thread I saw you reference with uncertain recall a crypto machine you worked with as being a KW-7 and didn't get around to confirming it. That would be a correct recollection, the KW-7/Orestes was widely used for the 82B1 circuitry, and later for point-to-point circuitry. 82B1 was phased out in the 60's by the military and replaced by AUTODIN which required KW-26/Romulus. The current State Department format is the ACP-127 format which was used by the military with the 82B1 system. AUTODIN used a different format set forth in JANAP 128. It's just conjecture, but State may have inherited the 82B1 stuff when the military phased it out.

btw, on another thread I saw you reference with uncertain recall a crypto machine you worked with as being a KW-7

My career as a communications center specialist was thankfully VERY brief. I didn't bother to confirm it was a KW-7 because frankly I didn't think anyone would care. Too much of a "inside baseball" thing.

I MAY have worked as a com center specialist a total of a month after graduating from Signal School at Ft.Gordon. I am just not temperamentally suited to working with a bunch of office twits and playing their "He-Bitch" games. I went to a line company,and spent the rest of my time in the army as a pretty happy camper. Things weren't perfect,but nobody was playing military school ego games and I was treated like an adult.