Washingtonpost.com:

Federal prosecutors have recommended that David H. Petraeus face charges for providing classified documents to his biographer, raising the prospect of criminal proceedings against the retired four-star general and former CIA director.

The recommendation follows a federal probe into how the biographer, Paula Broadwell, apparently obtained classified records several years ago while working on a book about Petraeus. Broadwell was also his mistress, and the documents were discovered by investigators during the scandal that forced Petraeus’s resignation as CIA director in 2012.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. must decide whether to pursue charges against Petraeus, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment, as did Robert B. Barnett, a lawyer for Petraeus.

Both Petraeus and Broadwell have denied in the past that he provided her with classified information. Investigators have previously focused on whether his staff gave her sensitive documents at his instruction.

Are we becoming a totally “gotcha” society?  There seems to be a great deal of over-reach by federal prosecutors.  There must be some over-powering need to punish people who have served the public.    Perhaps there is just too much “top-secret” information out there.  It’s one thing to be the Rosenbergs and pass top-secret atomic bomb info to the Soviets.  It’s another thing to let your mistress see your email.

Should Petraeus be prosecuted?  Are Broadwell and Petraeus still together?  I would support Mrs. Petraeus nailing his pelt to the wall.  Nothing more needs to be done.

25 Thoughts to “Federal prosecutors recommend that Petraeus face criminal charges”

  1. George S. Harris

    this is what happens when you think with the wrong head.

  2. Rick Bentley

    He really deserves this. I’m livid about this.

    I’m sick of the way the elitist douchebags like Petreaus fight to make history about them, instead of honestly serving as public servants. I remember when this woman wrote this book, and every talking head was falling all over themselves to summarize it, as if this guy were really important, were really changing history.

    This is a serious matter, and someone definitely needs to go to jail over this, him or her, or both.

  3. Rick Bentley

    Moon, how can you not be angrier at this guy? He violated national security in a way that would find you or I incarcerated and villianized. please let’s not feel differently about this just because he’s one of the “best and brightest”.

    1. We don’t really know what he did yet. It needs to be investigated. I think this country keeps too many secrets. For God’s sake, parts of the Roswell incident are still “top secret.”

      I think a lot of “top secret” stuff is just laziness and elitist. That’s a bad combination. Actually, I think the guy was just flattered. I don’t think he sold national secrets.

      I think there is too much gotcha. I think a lot of the McDonnell trials was gotcha also.

  4. Rick Bentley

    What I read, sourced, was that investigators have evidence that he let her loose in his email inbox, full of classified material.

  5. Rick Bentley

    Or at least, that she was in there. Either he let her in or she illicitly obtained his password and went in.

  6. Rick Bentley

    I think this is what he did – deliberately sent unencrypted copies of classified material into a “dropbox” for her to peruse. Blatantly illegal. And unethical. And he ought to be in jail. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/11/13/petraeus-broadwell-email/1702057/

  7. Scout

    appropo of George’s comment: Stephen Ambrose spoke (in the Clinton context) of God’s male design flaw: Both the brain and the penis need a strong blood supply to operate at full efficiency and there isn’t enough blood for both to operate at the same time. Pity.

    1. Stephen Ambrose was probably right. I have generally found that to be pretty much the case.

  8. Rick Bentley

    Male libido or male insecurity are no excuse for divulging classified information.

    If we’re going to give a CIA Head a pass on this, we’re setting a new low.

    1. I am not giving male libido a pass. I am saying we don’t know enough information to string him up yet. Secondly, I am questioning what all is considered “classified?” Too much govt BS gets classified as classified.

  9. Rick Bentley

    Yeah, that’s what Bradley Manning and Edward Snowdon said. An individual doesn’t get to decide what is and isn’t classified, because they’re feeding info to a reporter/mistress for a self-serving book.

  10. Wolve

    Scout :
    appropo of George’s comment: Stephen Ambrose spoke (in the Clinton context) of God’s male design flaw: Both the brain and the penis need a strong blood supply to operate at full efficiency and there isn’t enough blood for both to operate at the same time. Pity.

    Perhaps one of the few who might qualify was King Solomon.

  11. Starryflights

    This is absurd. The biggest threat to the national security was his removal from the CIA.

  12. Rick Bentley

    One of the biggest threats to liberty IMO is people who, like Starry above, place blind faith in leaders and fail to hold them to standards of accountability.

    We decided a while back – though I’m pretty sure that I didn’t get a vote – that white-collar financial crime was not worthy of incarceration, so long as the person in question was one of those nice people in suits who run society.

    Now it’s okay to deliberately mishandle classified info? If your dick and your sense of hubris tells you okay?

    Was Pateraeus entrusted with being the head of the CIA, or is the CIA something that he owned?

    1. He was fired. He was removed from his job in disgrace. Why do you want to imprison him? He obviously can’t pass any more secrets.

      I see you as the vengeful god from the Old Testament who wants to extract some sort of punishment beyond ruin.

      Incarceration is expensive and damaging. I think there are a lot better ways to punish white collar crime that are far more productive to society.

  13. Steve Thomas

    I might be angrier, had not the person provided with the information, not also had a Top Secret security clearance. She was a commissioned officer in the US Army Reserve. Granted, her “Need to Know” was based on a desire to write a biography of someone she first idolized, then with whom she engaged in an adulterous affair, but it’s not like she was some “honey trap” agent who pursued the General for the expressed purpose of gaining classified information as an act of espionage.

    Now, as much as I admire the General’s professional actions, and his patriotism, I do think it right that he was forced to resign. Someone entrusted with holding close secrets with the highest sensitivity, can not afford to make errors in personal judgment that may leave them vulnerable to extortion and blackmail, whether they be the head of the CIA, some Lt. Colonel working at the Pentagon, or the person sitting in the Oval office.

    I still think this is an attempt to keep him quiet with regards to Benghazi.

    I am a bit more cynical about this, and see

    1. Benghazi is old news. Let’s fixate on the Marine Barracks under Reagan if we want old news.

      I was going to agree with you until you started going political on the Petraeus situation.

  14. Pat.Herve

    If it is wrong, it is wrong. Why should it be any different if he is the Director of the CIA or an analyst with a contractor? Was there damage done with the disclosure – we do not know. If she was able to get the book to print maybe there would have been. I really hate that lower level people are held to a lower standard than the upper level – it should be the same. Just look at the McDonnell fiasco – if a department head took the same money he did – the person would be up on charges and everyone would want them in jail, but since it was the Gov, some think it OK that he accept all these gifts.

  15. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :Benghazi is old news. Let’s fixate on the Marine Barracks under Reagan if we want old news.
    I was going to agree with you until you started going political on the Petraeus situation.

    The Marine Barracks was an intelligence failure on the part of DIA and CIA to understand the intelligence that was being passed by the French and Israelis, and a leadership failure on the part of the 24 MAU commander to implement appropriate force protection. There wasn’t any cover-up, media spin, etc., and people lost their jobs because of it.

    I am cynical regarding most of what comes out of DC, beit from the mouths of either party. When words like “optics” are used when analyzing incidents, we deserve to be cynical. As I said, the General’s personal judgment was clouded, and placed himself in a situation where he could be extorted, either for political gain, or espionage.

    Did he betray his country, or engage in an act of treason? Not in my estimation, as his intent wasn’t to harm the US for personal or financial gain, and if there was unauthorized access to classified information granted, it wasn’t to a person who lacked the appropriate clearance either…just an official “need to know”. His resignation and retirement should suffice, as the only real crime was a betrayal of his marital vows, which had the potential to place him in a position to be exploited for real espionage, or political pressure.

    My cynicism stems from an “Ok, why now?”. The incident was investigated, and he resigned after publically admitting to the affair. No more leverage over him. Now the GOP controls the entire congress, and can launch investigations and hold hearings on a number of things, which if viewed through the “optics” of politics, have the potential to be damaging to the current administration, and the “defacto” nominee of the Dems in 2016. Best to start eliminating potential witnesses, especially those “in the know”, and over whom there is little leverage. Find some leverage.

    But my cynicism flows both ways. While I am sure there are some folks in congress who legitimately want to pursue “truth for truth’s sake”, most in DC, on both sides are only concerned with “gotcha”.

  16. Rick Bentley

    Snowdon had his reasons (which I am skeptical of, I think his real cause was megalomania). Manning had, arguably, honorable reasons for what he did.

    And Patraeus has his self-serving reasons also.

  17. Kelly_3406

    The case against Petraeus must be weak. I bet there is no direct link to him; otherwise the first we would have heard of this would have been AFTER charges were filed. It is hard to see any other explanation since the investigation has lasted so long.

  18. Steve Thomas

    Kelly_3406 :The case against Petraeus must be weak. I bet there is no direct link to him; otherwise the first we would have heard of this would have been AFTER charges were filed. It is hard to see any other explanation since the investigation has lasted so long.

    I was thinking the same thing; weak, or a “brush-back pitch”.

  19. Cargosquid

    @Rick Bentley
    “Manning had, arguably, honorable reasons for what he did.”

    No…he didn’t. He was upset about his love life.

    http://articles.mcall.com/2013-07-30/opinion/mc-bradley-manning-verdict-weiner-web-20130730_1_bradley-manning-edward-snowden-traitor

    “At the time he began leaking the information, in 2010, he was in a state of psychological and emotional crisis, wrestling with his gender identity and his rage. Judging by his computer chats, he found unleashing classified information liberating. But he knew he could face execution for what he was about to do.”

    He was an immature, mental and emotional cripple that should never have been anywhere near anything in the military.

    He wasn’t a “hero.” He was a spoiled brat having a tantrum.

  20. Rick Bentley

    I’m not going to fall deep into a defense of Bradley Manning. I didn’t say that she is/he was a hero. I believe that she deserves punishment. But I think that Manning did have some high-minded motives about liberating information.

Comments are closed.