Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

[Cali_Democrat]

Anne M. Tompkins
12:21 p.m. EDT August 31, 2015

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

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.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.

<...>

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly.

Indeed, the State Department has confirmed that none of the information that has surfaced on Clinton’s server thus far was classified at the time it was sent or received. Additionally, the Justice Department indicated that its inquiry is not a criminal one and that Clinton is not the subject of the inquiry.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

[Vinca]

1. 8 days ago he was saying the opposite. It's all so confusing.

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/22/433735908/former-attorney-general-questions-clintons-email-comments

[Cali_Democrat]

3. You're confused

Michael Mukasey is a Republican who was appointed Attorney General by George W. Bush.

He's a hack who's claiming that Clinton committed a crime.

The prosecutor in the David Petraeus case, Anne Tompkins, is the one who wrote the op-ed and she says Clinton committed no crime.

[Vinca]

15. That's what I said . . . confusing.

Everyone's got an opinion when no one really knows for sure what will happen in the end. I'm still bothered by the tens of thousands of hard copies rather than turning over a disk. It gives the impression someone was trying to hide a Photoshop job. Has anyone ever asked her about the hard copies in lieu of disk?

[cali]

2. Clinton supporter

[Cali_Democrat]

4. It's my understanding that

Hillary would have had to knowingly disseminate classified information in order to actually be prosecuted.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Here is the actual statute, compadre

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Sec. 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)
Amendments
2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “under this title” for “not more than $1,000,”.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Thank you for providing the relevant statute, DSB

Facts are stubborn things for some people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. You are welcome, compadre

eom

[dsc]

5. Just so I have the rules straight

If a supporter of Bush writes something critical of Hillary the fact they support Bush is completely and utterly irrelevant and we are totally out of line for pointing out the writer is a supporter of Bush. But if a supporter of Hillary writes something that isn't critical of Hillary the one and only thing we are to look at is that they are a supporter of Hillary. Is that pretty much it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Michael Mukasey was the consigliere for a lawless administration

Michael Mukasey was the consigliere for a lawless administration that lied us into war. I give his opinion no deference.

[asiliveandbreathe]

10. Mukasey?? One of Jebbies Foreign Affairs

advisors....motive??

From Media Matters -

Major media outlets are turning to former attorney general Michael Mukasey to launch smears against Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton without disclosing the fact that Mukasey is an adviser on Republican Jeb Bush's presidential campaign.

[AtomicKitten]

11. They should take that argument as well as all the other declarations of innocence

... straight to the FBI/DOJ and have them run it up the flagpole. I'm sure they will take it under advisement and give it the due consideration it deserves.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. The DOJ investigation is not a criminal one

The FBI doesn't prosecute, it's the DOJ who prosecutes and there is no criminal investigation.

Clinton isn't even the subject of the inquiry.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Maybe your interlocutor isn't aware of the fact...

Maybe your interlocutor isn't aware of the fact that the FBI investigates and the DOJ decides to prosecute. It was nice of you to point that out to her. You are an extremely thoughtful and helpful poster.