A revelation coming out of Hillary Clinton’s emails was her keen interest in the Presidential ambitions of one General David Petraeus:
“Clemons had dinner this week with Petraeus, who freely talked about running for president,” Blumenthal wrote to Clinton.
“Will he write about Petraeus?” Clinton wrote back five minutes later.
Moments later, Blumenthal sent Clinton Clemons’ post mentioning the off-the-record dinner and discussing the relative political merits of Petraeus, Vice President Joe Biden and Clinton herself.
“Clemons… told me more detail about [Petraeus’] attitude and interest,” Blumenthal said, adding a couple of nuggets.
Within four months someone decided to throw a wrench into the spokes of Petraeus’ bicycle to the delight of Clinton:
Clinton’s top communications adviser, Philippe Reines, opined that the new assignment would be seen as a way to take Petraeus, said to describe himself as a Rockefeller Republican, out of contention as a potential presidential candidate in 2012.
According to Reines, this would “lock up” Petraeus:
“My bet on the direction this now takes is two fronts 1) does Petreaus make any big changes; can he do in Afghanistan what he did in Iraq; his health; political benefits of locking him up like Huntsman,” Reines wrote to top Clinton advisers, referring to perceptions that Huntsman was out of the running for 2012 because he accepted an appointment from Obama to be U.S. Ambassador to China. The email was later forwarded to Clinton by her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.
Not long afterward an affair between Petraeus and Paula Broadwell was uncovered and Petraeus was taken out of the Presidential picture.
Comparisons have been drawn between the actions of Petraeus and Clinton. These comparisons were dismissed by Petraeus prosecutor Anne Tompkins:
As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.
Of course she sees no merit. She is a Hillary Clinton supporter and campaign donor– to the max:
Noted at the bottom of the op-ed, Tompkins is a donor to Clinton’s presidential campaign. According to Federal Election Commission data, she gifted $2,700–the maximum amount–to Hillary for America in June after the email controversy broke. She also made contributions to Clinton’s failed 2008 bid for the Democratic nomination.
Broadwell was under investigation for “improperly” trying to access Petraeus’ email and “gaining access to classified information.”
Didn’t you ever wonder what happened to those charges?
They went nowhere. Why?
Paula Broadwell, who was a military intelligence officer at the time, had the security clearance to review the information she had.
She was stripped of that clearance for “storing classified military material at her home.” Ultimately, that’s what brought Petraeus down as well. I know someone else who was storing classified intelligence at her home. And in a toilet closet.
The difference? I don’t see any. Clinton’s current defense is that she is an idiot who can’t recognize classified information despite being specifically briefed on doing so.
Then there’s the issue of her ordering her underlings not to use private emails for official business.
Then there’s issue of Clinton asserting that the use of secret email accounts was treasonous.
Then there’s the issue of her asserting that there was no classified information on her server.
Then there’s the issue of her sucking at math (one blackberry plus one I-pad equals one device)
There sure are a lot of issues.
In just another one of those Cosmic Clinton Coincidences a potential adversary is dealt a political death blow. Hillary Clinton did have classified information stored at her home, just as Petraeus and Broadwell did. She violated the rules and should be treated no differently, i.e. disqualification for higher office and loss of security clearance. As they say at Think Progress, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Exit question: How the hell is it more convenient (to carry one device!) to establish a private home email server complete with the installation both in home and in commode than it would have been to let the IT people at State do it all for you?
Likely answer: Many of the deleted emails were related to the Clinton Foundation, which shared the same IP address. Can’t have any of that quid pro quo stuff getting out.
The sheer disdain the Clinton’s have for others is breathtaking. They really think everyone else is stupid. They think they are better than you and are above all the rules.
Second exit question: How did top secret classified information even get onto the Clinton server?
Whoever sent it there is in violation of the Espionage Act.