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

[snake020]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/marine-general-james-cartwright-leak-fbi.html

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what was the motivation to leak to the press? A matter of simply thinking he'd be anonymously helpful in providing info about cyber ops? Some political retribution? What am I missing here? Surely a four star Marine General has more sense than a simple "oops, I didn't know any better?"

 

[nittany03]

Power corrupts, etc. etc.

 

[Renegade One]

Surely a four star Marine General has more sense than a simple "oops, I didn't know any better?"

Should have stuck with the bullet-proof response: "I don't recall."

 

[Randy Daytona]

I've said it before. Get you own server - you will be bulletproof. And learn a little Latin, something like Quid Pro Quo...

 

[Uncle Fester]

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.

 

[robav8r]

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.

For who? Her? Federal employees? If you or I did that our careers would be over. Immediately. No questions asked. Its absurd that people try to defend what Hillary did and justify that is wasn't "criminal."

 

[squorch2]

The statute requires intent. As in, you intended to give away the information.

The FBI director said there was no intent, hence no prosecution.

Are you mad that there are different standards for political appointees and GS/military members?

 

[robav8r]

The statute requires intent. As in, you intended to give away the information.

The FBI director said there was no intent, hence no prosecution.

Are you mad that there are different standards for political appointees and GS/military members?

I'm mad that we have seemingly discarded the concept of "trust" and justified an incredulous act because of the word "intent" in a criminal statute. It's ridiculous and everyone knows it.

 

[squorch2]

Nation of laws, etc. etc.

 

[robav8r]

Nation of laws, etc. etc.

Sure, whatever folks need to justify the behavior.

 

[zippy]

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.

It was when John Deutsch, the CIA director, did it...

 

[Flash]

...Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what was the motivation to leak to the press? A matter of simply thinking he'd be anonymously helpful in providing info about cyber ops? Some political retribution? What am I missing here? Surely a four star Marine General has more sense than a simple "oops, I didn't know any better?"

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.

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.

It was when John Deutsch, the CIA director, did it...

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

If you or I did that our careers would be over. Immediately. No questions asked. Its absurd that people try to defend what Hillary did and justify that is wasn't "criminal."

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.

 

[zippy]

His was deliberate mishandling of classified

And hers wasn't?

So we have a Secretary of State, who was a former First Lady and United States Senator who was on the Comittie on Armed Services who claims she was was never exposed to any knowledge/training/best practices/gouge about what classified information is, or how to handle it. Even IF that was true, gnorance hasn't been an acceptable excuse for anyone else.... Politics makes her different.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I'm mad that we have seemingly discarded the concept of "trust" and justified an incredulous act because of the word "intent" in a criminal statute. It's ridiculous and everyone knows it.

Unless you're proposing that application of a law should depend on "everyone knows it," instead of what the statue actually says, I'm not sure what you're proposing we do instead.

The FBI investigated this, exhaustively. The Director didn't say she did nothing wrong; he said she did nothing criminal, and that's a critical difference.

 

[Flash]

And hers wasn't?

The FBI determined it wasn't. In Deutsch's case it could be proven because he had actual classified files and documents that were transferred from classified networks on his unclassified computers, a deliberate act.

Since we are already beating a dead horse:

The Director didn't say she did nothing wrong; he said she did nothing criminal, and that's a critical difference.