Posted on 01/09/2015 4:26:29 PM PST by InMemoriam
More than two years after he resigned as director of the CIA, it's more likely than ever that General Petraeus will be the subject of a federal indictment. Today, The New York Times is reporting that the FBI and Justice Department have recommended felony charges against the General for leaking classified information to his mistress, Paula Broadwell. Petraeus hasn't commented on the charges, but has apparently told the Justice Department that he has no interest in a plea deal. It's up to Attorney General Holder whether or not the government presses charges against Petraeus, but if it does, the result would be one of the largest court cases against a senior military officer in recent memory.
The FBI alleges that Petraeus gave Broadwell access to his CIA email account and other classified information as part of the research for her biography of Petraeus. The investigation also involved the bureau breaking into Petraeus's personal Gmail account, where he and Broadwell communicated through unsent messages in the Drafts folder. Still, the investigation and early prosecutorial measures have been unusually delicate because of the politics involved. As one FBI official told the Times as the case was first breaking, "there are a lot of sensitivities in a case like this."
Interesting timing, why now? As with many other events associated with the liberal/progressive/socialist/communist political class, there is a reason for this. My guess is this is likely related to self-preservation or scandal mitigation. The question is, will the Gen put himself above the good of the country (be intimidated into silence) or will he expose whatever is worrying the administration (and likely her thighness). Either way the media will soon begin attacking the Gen per the playbook to influence public opinion in favor of the liberal/progressive/socialist/communist cause.
Regards.
No, that’s not what the chart shows. I am wondering if these are whizz kids working on “special” projects.
The Republicans control the House and the Senate now. This was a warning to everyone not to talk to the Republicans about Libya. It’s a bluff. Just another maneuver in the big poker game.
The “less than 2 years” scale is usually for direct commission or enlistment.
I believe it started during the Civil War when certain influential folks rec’d direct commissions.
I don’t think there would be any direct commission 2 Stars in this day and age...
But there are Doctors and other specialists that can receive direct commissions and have less than 2 years of service.
That’s whay joe6pack just explained to me on another thread. Thanks
okey dokey, at least we were consistent?
Ref: “Can some one tell me how you can be a 2 star general with less than 2 years of service?”
There are some very rare circumstances where that can occur. In WWII,there were civilians appointed to active duty ranks as general officers for their senior leadership experience in industry and research and to head up major wartime industrial and military production projects.
The most frequent occurrences in this day and age would probably be in the National Guard. The Adjutant General of a State basically serves as the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of the “militia” for the Governor who appoints him/her. AGs hold the rank and pay of a Major General. In many states, the AG is also the head of the state emergency response system. Although the authority exists for Governors to appoint anyone to this position, the most likely situation would be someone with a long time service in police, fire, or public health systems of the state to be appointed as the AG based on his emergency management experience, without ever serving in the Army.
One about her hair color. I’ll only add that it was in a professional context. She was actually “blown up” in iraq though other than a little back trouble and sensitivity to loud noises there seem to be no after effects.
“Petreaus had the authority he needed to share information with her within that classification.”
It’s not sufficient that she had a clearance. Sharing SECRET information with her without “a need to know” is a security violation.
If it was relevant to the historical research on a subject, perhaps as proof of a time line and helping an author get an understanding of the mind set of a particular moment in which a particular decision was made, I don’t have a problem with it — as long as the information was not misused and the privilege was not abused.
No. No. No.
What are you trying to do?
Punish or destroy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.