Leaked to a journalist with the intent of the information going public.
So you think telling national secrets to get laid is a far more noble practice?
What is it with this blind tribalism? Petraeus is a textbook example of what not to do. That he's being employed in a position of responsibility again is a sign that those who leaked far sensitive information for far better reasons are not necessarily unemployable.
no intention to pass the information on to the public
A journalist had no intention of passing the information on to the public? That is their job. What's with the pretence of mental impairment?
Einstein isn't going to get anything proven to him. He is dead.
Really? How about time travel:)
Yes I know, just as stupid as the thing you pointed out.
Ironically today I got up the the bit in Greg Egan's SF novel "The Arrows of Time" where some characters take a twelve year side trip to try to observe gravitational lensing.
That leads into my earlier question again - why did you initially phrase religious intolerance as racism but then get extremely critical of me for not correcting you but instead letting your mistake stand?
new NSA contractor and Manning released the classified information to the public.
No - to an American journalist each time and not directly to the public. Petraeus leaked it to a journalist as well. Distracting with reserve ranks and so on is just dishonest - she was not cleared for the information and she was working in the capacity of a journalist and not in the capacity of a military officer with a right to the information.
So all of them leaking to American journalists. No espionage involved.
It's rather funny to see you acting against one of the major ideas of the American way, that nobody is above or below the law, just to push your petty little partisan barrow. That's very Soviet of you putting "The Party" ahead of the country.
My point is that he would not have been denied a jury trial given the charge. Nasty of you to try to twist it another way just to cheer for a convicted felon just because he's a member of your political tribe.
So he did absolutely nothing wrong? Then why was he fired, why did it go to court and why was he found guilty? The reality denial here is utterly astonishing - all so that felon can be dusted off and given a prime job instead of it being given to someone who can be trusted.
From your apology for a real felony far greater than anything people have imagined about Hillary's email, and for the most base of motives, you have made it extremely clear how partisan you are. Manning was guilty of far less, leaked far less sensitive material and had far purer motives yet spent years imprisoned.
If you look at her social media posts, it is clear that she was not emotionally stable
I thought half the point of Bookface and the Twit thing was ranting anyway, so if all you had to go by was social media posts you'd assume that just about everyone is "not emotionally stable".
So given that his relevant experience is a bit thin by recent standards, why Wray?
Because he's in a vanishingly small pool of cronies instead of being chosen by qualification. People are being chosen if they are willing to swear fealty to a man and not willing to serve their country. Thus personal connections matter.
But while an FBI director works under the president, he's not the president's personal lawyer; his duty is to the country.
As the news this week shows that's not what Trump is looking for. He actually wanted Comey to make some sort of declaration of personal loyalty.
Ah - the guy that suggested giving weapons to extremist Islamic terrorists is OK but whistleblowing is not is back with another distortion of reality. Why did you run away and not answer my question?
Flyover country that's constantly insulted by liberals doesn't need any help from the Russians to hate Hillary
Entirely true but it appears the Russians decided to stir the pot a bit anyway. They had nothing to lose and certainly have gained a lot going by the last NATO meeting. I think Trump has given them more than they dreamed they would get.
Fuck off. Democracy in Saudi would be worse than what they have now (an issue you haven't addressed). Politics is the art of the possible.
I agree, and this is why: What most people have not grasped is that Democracy in Saudi Arabia if delivered immediately would likely be similar to the recent situation in Egypt where only religious extremists were organised enough to run a successful political party (an artifact of unlawful assembly laws previously). There are frequently good reasons why revolutions result in a government as bad as what they have replaced. If you want good governance it takes time, and you can't impose it from without. I'm no fan of the Saudis, medieval autocratic shitheads who deliberately drove a lot of US energy companies broke with their oil price war (not to mention the far worse thing of funding and spreading a poisonous cult that's giving us ISIL/Daash etc), but we can't just flip a switch to democracy in another country and expect it to work by magic.
>Trump's potential are terrifying to the political elite.
LOL. Oh, you actuallly believe trump hasnt been bought by the swamp ? let me laugh even louder : HAHAHAHAHAH !!!
He's been part of the swamp since birth. His family were deep in doing political deals for their own financial advantage and he's kept up the tradition. Of course there will be some "but... Hillary" post after this, and the only answer to such stupidity is that what she did wrong doesn't excuse Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
So you think telling national secrets to get laid is a far more noble practice?
What is it with this blind tribalism? Petraeus is a textbook example of what not to do. That he's being employed in a position of responsibility again is a sign that those who leaked far sensitive information for far better reasons are not necessarily unemployable.
A journalist had no intention of passing the information on to the public? That is their job.
What's with the pretence of mental impairment?
Really? :)
How about time travel
Yes I know, just as stupid as the thing you pointed out.
Ironically today I got up the the bit in Greg Egan's SF novel "The Arrows of Time" where some characters take a twelve year side trip to try to observe gravitational lensing.
It's called adding to the discussion instead of only saying "me too".
That leads into my earlier question again - why did you initially phrase religious intolerance as racism but then get extremely critical of me for not correcting you but instead letting your mistake stand?
No - to an American journalist each time and not directly to the public.
Petraeus leaked it to a journalist as well. Distracting with reserve ranks and so on is just dishonest - she was not cleared for the information and she was working in the capacity of a journalist and not in the capacity of a military officer with a right to the information.
So all of them leaking to American journalists. No espionage involved.
It's rather funny to see you acting against one of the major ideas of the American way, that nobody is above or below the law, just to push your petty little partisan barrow. That's very Soviet of you putting "The Party" ahead of the country.
My point is that he would not have been denied a jury trial given the charge.
Nasty of you to try to twist it another way just to cheer for a convicted felon just because he's a member of your political tribe.
So he did absolutely nothing wrong?
Then why was he fired, why did it go to court and why was he found guilty?
The reality denial here is utterly astonishing - all so that felon can be dusted off and given a prime job instead of it being given to someone who can be trusted.
From your apology for a real felony far greater than anything people have imagined about Hillary's email, and for the most base of motives, you have made it extremely clear how partisan you are.
Manning was guilty of far less, leaked far less sensitive material and had far purer motives yet spent years imprisoned.
He shared it to a journalist for sex you tool.
It's astonishing how partisan people are getting here now.
Wrong.
What she found is bounded by what civilian contractors are allowed access to.
Such as exposing wrongdoing of incumbents? Pretty fucking medieval thinking there Strat.
But they are not supposed to be running the country so it's kind of irrelevant for the next few years isn't it?
Petraeus did the same only with far more sensitive material and he had a jury.
I was simply remarking that, if she didn't actually want to get caught, she should have thought it through better - like Snowden did.
If Snowden had really thought things through, he wouldn't be living in Moscow.
He didn't expect the Chinese to turn on him.
Would you?
I thought half the point of Bookface and the Twit thing was ranting anyway, so if all you had to go by was social media posts you'd assume that just about everyone is "not emotionally stable".
And five will get you ten that, during the confirmation hearing, at least one Senator asks "Did Trump ask you for a pledge of loyalty to him?"
No your honor - he asked me for an oath of fealty and then let me kiss his ring.
Because he's in a vanishingly small pool of cronies instead of being chosen by qualification.
People are being chosen if they are willing to swear fealty to a man and not willing to serve their country. Thus personal connections matter.
As the news this week shows that's not what Trump is looking for. He actually wanted Comey to make some sort of declaration of personal loyalty.
Yes, Rupert Murdoch has been doing that shit for decades.
So it's not so much thinking ahead than following a tried and tested formula.
Ah - the guy that suggested giving weapons to extremist Islamic terrorists is OK but whistleblowing is not is back with another distortion of reality.
Why did you run away and not answer my question?
Entirely true but it appears the Russians decided to stir the pot a bit anyway. They had nothing to lose and certainly have gained a lot going by the last NATO meeting. I think Trump has given them more than they dreamed they would get.
Fuck off. Democracy in Saudi would be worse than what they have now (an issue you haven't addressed). Politics is the art of the possible.
I agree, and this is why:
What most people have not grasped is that Democracy in Saudi Arabia if delivered immediately would likely be similar to the recent situation in Egypt where only religious extremists were organised enough to run a successful political party (an artifact of unlawful assembly laws previously).
There are frequently good reasons why revolutions result in a government as bad as what they have replaced.
If you want good governance it takes time, and you can't impose it from without.
I'm no fan of the Saudis, medieval autocratic shitheads who deliberately drove a lot of US energy companies broke with their oil price war (not to mention the far worse thing of funding and spreading a poisonous cult that's giving us ISIL/Daash etc), but we can't just flip a switch to democracy in another country and expect it to work by magic.
>Trump's potential are terrifying to the political elite.
LOL. Oh, you actuallly believe trump hasnt been bought by the swamp ? let me laugh even louder : HAHAHAHAHAH !!!
He's been part of the swamp since birth. His family were deep in doing political deals for their own financial advantage and he's kept up the tradition. ... Hillary" post after this, and the only answer to such stupidity is that what she did wrong doesn't excuse Trump.
Of course there will be some "but
Do you mean income tax with money taken out of salary/wages or do you mean something else?
Give it a few months and you'll get over it.
The same little group over and over.
Why is a country as large as the USA run by a bunch like a small town high school tennis club?