While the other differences between the Clinton situation and this have been explored, I don’t think his mistress’s security clearance is much of a mitigating factor since there isn’t really any argument that she had any need to know the top secret information that Petraeus kept and improperly stored. I know you know this, but others might not know that just because someone has a security clearance doesn’t mean they can access and look at any and all classified information at their respective level, particularly at the TS level and particularly when that individual is not active duty. To access particular classified information or materials, particularly highly classified materials, individuals still must have a need to know due to their duties or position.
I’m not sure which specific denial you’re talking about, but I think the one key claim of hers is that she did not email any classified information. It is now known that this was false. But was it a bald-faced lie?
Think about if you ask me if I have ever met Roger Jones. I might say, “No, I’ve never met him. I wouldn’t recognize him on the street if he walked right up to me.” Then you tell me that he was in my study group in college. If the totality of facts indicate that to the best of my recollection, I believed my statement to be correct when I said it, it is possible to be wrong on facts and not have my statement judged a lie.
If, on the other hand, I know damn well who Roger Jones is, and I don’t want to admit it, my statement is a straight up lie.
You can decide on your own if you think Clinton knew that she emailed classified information and made statements contrary to what she knew to be the truth. I happen to believe that she was factually wrong when she made those declarations, but I don’t think there was an intent to say what she knew not to be the truth. I also think that the whole idea of using non-government email for official purposes was a massive error in judgment for many reasons. The opinions of the investigators and attorneys who examined her care apparently agree with these conclusions.
In Petraeus’ case, there’s simply no room to dispute that he knew the truth perfectly well – both that he retained classified information and passed it onto his mistress – and intended to mislead the FBI when asked about it. It is an open-and-shut case that goes beyond an error in judgment, and Petraeus himself has agreed with government investigators and attorneys that his actions violated the law.
Ravenman, thanks for your thoughtful post. I think highlighting that one can be factually incorrect without lying is a very valuable lesson, one that people on both sides of the political divide tend to forget when it’s convenient (and I’m sure I’m personally guilty of this).
As for Clinton, I don’t know that I’ve entirely made up my mind about whether she was “lying” or not. I think that she’s a lawyer, used to carefully parsing words, which is why she added words like “knowingly” and “marked” over time, and sometimes she just plain fucked it up, but I haven’t entirely decided if I think she was really trying to be misleading, or if she was just ignorant of some facts and was trying to put as much positive spin on the others as she could during an election.
And yet, we live in a country in which a sitting general could resign, run for office, and be the commander in chief of the military he left not even a year ago. I think the way that the constitution was designed, particularly with a popular former general being its ultimate first president (two-terms no less), it’s pretty clear that the relationship between the presidency and the military go hand in hand. Whether that’s a good thing or not is debatable, but if you’re going to use the existing laws as a basis for blocking a nomination, it’s probably fitting to point out that the supreme law of the land more than likely finds it a permissible practice, provided that the individuals in question don’t simply usurp the law but adhere to some sort of legal remedy in the interim.
He got rid of the filibuster because obstructionist republicans left him with little or no choice, other than to propose no legislation at all. We have the law, the rules of the chamber, the filibuster – and then we have the spirit of the law, the spirit of the rule, the spirit of the filibuster. The Republicans have been using laws, rules, and filibusters simply because they can, which has a corrosive effect over the long term. So yes, the decision to do away with the filibuster will have adverse consequences for the democrats now that they’re out of power, but they had no choice when they were in power.
I expect we’ll hear the same argument from Senate Republicans on SCOTUS nominations if the Dems are able to cobble together a filibuster.
The limit put on retiring generals was made law in 1947. It was lowered from 10 years to 7 in 2008. It’s not like it was part of the constitution. I don’t think it’s a bad concept but I see no reason why exceptions can’t be made on a case by case basis.
And has a case been made to lower it by 4 years in this case? Has he shown that there are no other qualified people, or that this one man has something special that only he can provide?
“'Cause I say so” and/or “'Cause I wanna!” just isn’t good enough, in my opinion.
There’s a lot of middle ground between “no other qualified people, or that this one man has something special that only he can provide” and “'Cause I say so and/or 'cause I wanna!”. I suspect Mattis falls somewhere in this middle ground.
And I suspect I still want to hear the actual reason(s) to override the rule this time.
This thread already contains quite a few of them. Reading back through this thread, can you really not find even one “actual reason” that it might be worth overriding the rule this time to have Mattis be the SecDef?
ETA: I don’t mean to suggest that you have to agree that it’s a good enough reason, but looking back over previous posts, I can see quite a few reason why it might be a good idea.
No, I don’t see a good reason to override this rule in this thread. We have had such exceptional military leaders throughout our history, and (for the most part) the rule has stood, and for good reason in my opinion.
Fair enough, that’s a perfectly valid opinion. Is there someone else on Donald Trump’s short-list for SecDef that you’d prefer?
“Well, OK, then, you don’t want typhoid? How about anthrax, or cholera? You are free to choose!”
Please remind me-who else is on that list?
It varied quite a bit, and was mostly media speculation, but specifically I remember there was talk of Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn (obviously, they got different slots), Stephen Hadley, Jim Talent, and Duncan Hunter.
Basically, people that supported his campaign. Speaking honestly. were there any that qualified under the “7 year” rule that you think would actually know what they are doing?
“actually know what they are doing” is a pretty low bar, and I think any of those I listed would’ve cleared that bar easily.
Duncan Hunter, in particular, seems like a rather bland and unobjectionable Republican with some experience in that area and probably would have done a decent job.
I would support him, actually(clean as a whistle, politically and ethically)…except for the fact that he continues to serve in the Marine Corps Reserve. If the “7 year” rule doesn’t cover the Reserves, then my reservations are null and void. Good pick.
My understanding was that it only applied to “Active Duty” service members, but I can’t recall where I picked up that tidbit now.