Trump meeting with Petraeus for State

[Anonymous]

Considering the alternative...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans will have exactly d*ck to say about this.

Deflections about Hillary in five, four, three...

Dem here. I would rather have Petraeus at State than Hillary. Both have bad morals and played loose with classified data, but he will protect people and Hillary did not

Bad morals? You better throw Trump in there too, and nobody better say a thing about infidelity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope the women of the Senate revisit in great detail his affair with the young woman writing a book about him - how he gave her special access, gave herloads of highly classified info, etc. If I were a female US Senator, I would also ask for the details of the investigation into these matters, the charges laid and the settlement. I would call Paula Broadwell under oath and ask lots of questions about access to Petraeus, unauthorized receipt of classified material and how Petraeus traded classified info and access for an ongoing sexual relationship. I'd also ask a lot of questions about how women in the Department of State could rely on a leader who slept with media to protect them from sexual harrassment on the job.

Don't even go there when you elected a thrice married philanderer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the women of the Senate revisit in great detail his affair with the young woman writing a book about him - how he gave her special access, gave herloads of highly classified info, etc. If I were a female US Senator, I would also ask for the details of the investigation into these matters, the charges laid and the settlement. I would call Paula Broadwell under oath and ask lots of questions about access to Petraeus, unauthorized receipt of classified material and how Petraeus traded classified info and access for an ongoing sexual relationship. I'd also ask a lot of questions about how women in the Department of State could rely on a leader who slept with media to protect them from sexual harrassment on the job.

Don't even go there when you elected a thrice married philanderer.

...amongst other harrassment towards women.

[Anonymous]

Personally I would go with Romney at State, Petraeus at Defense, and Mattis as NSA. Show Flynn the curb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. It just gets worse and worse. Where are all the qualified, smart, stable people?

None of them are stupid enough to take a job with this administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the women of the Senate revisit in great detail his affair with the young woman writing a book about him - how he gave her special access, gave herloads of highly classified info, etc. If I were a female US Senator, I would also ask for the details of the investigation into these matters, the charges laid and the settlement. I would call Paula Broadwell under oath and ask lots of questions about access to Petraeus, unauthorized receipt of classified material and how Petraeus traded classified info and access for an ongoing sexual relationship. I'd also ask a lot of questions about how women in the Department of State could rely on a leader who slept with media to protect them from sexual harrassment on the job.

Don't even go there when you elected a thrice married philanderer.

...amongst other harrassment towards women.

The democratic women of the Senate didn't elect a thrice married philanderer. Any one of them would have enough credibility to challenge Petraeus on his revelation of top secret info. If Petraeus is so easily swayed by sex, why should he be trusted with secrets? If Ryan called for HRC not to be given security briefings because of her mishandling of classified info, why does the same not apply to Petraeus? Petraeus was in danger of a felony charge until he managed to negotiate down to misdemeanor. Broadwell didn't have security clearance appropriate for the material but was not charged because the Administration bought her argument that she was a registered journalist and as such had 1st Amndmt protections.

The real question is if Petrasus wants a job with Trump so bad that he is willing to open il this old wound for himself and his family.

I don't know him personally, so can't judge.

[Anonymous]

Bonus, he works for KKR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope he does not pick Petraeus. However, Petraeus was convicted--instead of getting away with it. We should also note that he only shared his diaries with one person--who also had a TS clearance. Doesn't excuse it.

She was not cleared at the time. And he took top secret documents home and gave them to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope he does not pick Petraeus. However, Petraeus was convicted--instead of getting away with it. We should also note that he only shared his diaries with one person--who also had a TS clearance. Doesn't excuse it.

She was not cleared at the time. And he took top secret documents home and gave them to her.

+1. He and she took confidential and above documents out of a secure environment and kept them at home in an insecure environment. It's a crime. He pleaded guilty.

Just as R's went crazy about HRC taking confidential docs out of the secure DoState system/environment, so they should be enraged that Petraeus did the same thing.

[Anonymous]

What Petraeus did was much worse. He deliberately gave classified information to someone he knew was going to read it, and lack the clearance to do so. Add in that he did it in the context of a sexual relationship.

[Anonymous]

Trump really loves making people dizzy.

First the woman best suited for domestic efforts becomes the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Now a decorated + controversial General and fmr head of the CIA becomes head of State? Why not just make him head of Defense?

So insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. It just gets worse and worse. Where are all the qualified, smart, stable people?

Welcome to the Kakistocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump really loves making people dizzy.

First the woman best suited for domestic efforts becomes the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Now a decorated + controversial General and fmr head of the CIA becomes head of State? Why not just make him head of Defense?

So insane.

DNI would be the right place for him. Is he clearable, though? A Russian honeypot might tempt his weak loins.

[Anonymous]

Does the good general also grab p****? Maybe he and Donnie bonded over the Billy Bush tape.