James Cartwright, Ex-General, Pleads Guilty in Leak Case

[robav8r]

I thought this was an interesting summary of the email fiasco . . .

https://sharylattkisson.com/the-clearest-no-spin-summary-of-fbi-report-on-hillary-clinton-email/

 

[RadicalDude]

I thought this was an interesting summary of the email fiasco . . .

https://sharylattkisson.com/the-clearest-no-spin-summary-of-fbi-report-on-hillary-clinton-email/

Ah yes, the author of "Stonewalled: One Reporter's Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington."

I'm sure this will be a fair account.

 

[wlawr005]

Could have been to try and influence policy but many times it is as simple as wanting to show off, letting other folks know how important you are to know such stuff.





His was deliberate mishandling of classified and much more info that was mishandled.



But we almost certainly wouldn't have been charged with a crime or even dismissed from the service, albeit with no clearance anymore. I saw it first-hand several times. As for the criminality of it her actions didn't rise to the level of criminality in the statue, simple as that.

Jesus. Are you even fucking American? It's not hard to deduce the Justice Department was clearly under qualified to prosecute this case. It's hard to make such a public fuck up a federal case when that opens it up to public speculation. She can't lose in the eyes of the public (re: the FEDERAL investigation) without doing more damage than she's done.

I don't believe you're ignorant...just purposefully obtuse. That makes me angrier.

Then again you're the guy who consistently defends the fuck tard who burned years of intelligence when he landed his reconnaissance plane in China.

Your lackadaisical interpretation of how significant our intelligence community's strengths and weaknesses are confound me.

 

[robav8r]

Ah yes, the author of "Stonewalled: One Reporter's Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington."

I'm sure this will be a fair account.

Any issues with the timeline and sequence of events though?

 

[Flash]

Jesus. Are you even fucking American?

Well, I do have a passport....

It's not hard to deduce the Justice Department was clearly under qualified to prosecute this case. It's hard to make such a public fuck up a federal case when that opens it up to public speculation. She can't lose in the eyes of the public (re: the FEDERAL investigation) without doing more damage than she's done.

If not the Justice Department just who would prosecute the case? Congress? Wikileaks? Trump?

I don't believe you're ignorant...just purposefully obtuse. That makes me angrier.

Uh oh!

Then again you're the guy who consistently defends the fuck tard who burned years of intelligence when he landed his reconnaissance plane in China.

Well, I am eminently qualified to comment on that along with the others who flew the did the same mission and who also happen to think the same but I guess that sort of thing doesn't matter to you.

Jesus.

Finally, nobody fucks with the Jesus!

 

[snake020]

So... uh... anyone care to speculate on the motivation? At least for Petraeus, it was pretty clear it was to help/impress his girlfriend.
And surely Cartwright had enough sense to know this release would cause harm. I believe up until that point there was speculation that either Israel or the U.S. was behind Stuxnet, but no claim of responsibility.

 

[Flash]

So... uh... anyone care to speculate on the motivation? At least for Petraeus, it was pretty clear it was to help/impress his girlfriend. And surely Cartwright had enough sense to know this release would cause harm. I believe up until that point there was speculation that either Israel or the U.S. was behind Stuxnet, but no claim of responsibility.

I would guess ego but I speculated on other reasons too:

Could have been to try and influence policy but many times it is as simple as wanting to show off, letting other folks know how important you are to know such stuff.

 

[squorch2]

Could have been to try and influence policy but many times it is as simple as wanting to show off, letting other folks know how important you are to know such stuff.

There is likely no loss of ego so bracing as the one when you go from being having stars to being retired.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Did not expect to see this in The Washington Post

General Cartwright is paying the price for Hillary Clinton’s sins

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lintons-sins/?utm_term=.3633510e38d2#comments

 

[Flash]

Did not expect to see this in The Washington Post

General Cartwright is paying the price for Hillary Clinton’s sins

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lintons-sins/?utm_term=.3633510e38d2#comments

It is an Opinon piece, don't you realize that the post employs Charles Krauthammer as a columnist too?

 

[Recovering LSO]

CDR Salamander's thoughts: https://blog.usni.org/2016/10/19/you-can-be-in-dc-but-dont-try-to-be-of-dc

 

[pourts]

Are you really going to roll that out every time the word "classified" is used?

GEN Cartwright deliberately leaked classified information to the press; and to the point, he was convicted of lying to the FBI during the investigation, not spilling classified. What Hillary did is akin to taking working papers from a SCIF and locking it in your filing cabinet at home. Violation of policy, reckless, and really dumb, not criminal.

You forgot:
...learning that the chinese had tried to break into your home safe twice, and maybe gotten in, but continuing to keep working papers inside because it was more convenient, and allowed you to destroy the working papers in case there was even an investigation that needed to use them as evidence.

 

[robav8r]

CDR Salamander's thoughts: https://blog.usni.org/2016/10/19/you-can-be-in-dc-but-dont-try-to-be-of-dc

Good read . . .

 

[Hair Warrior]

For those who defend Hillary Clinton as uncriminal and unintentional, do you believe - based on her own statements - she should remain eligible to have access to classified information in the future?

 

[nittany03]

For those who defend Hillary Clinton as uncriminal and unintentional, do you believe - based on her own statements - she should remain eligible to have access to classified information in the future?

If she's elected President, it doesn't matter; she gets the keys to the kingdom, by virtue of the office.