> "Petraeus then lied to the FBI about it, the court papers said."
source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/former-cia-director-petr...
Clinton choosing to use a private email server was a big mistake, but Petraeus' actions are MUCH worse. Not even in the same category. He's lucky he did not end up in jail.
Always great to hear from people who know how open investigations will be resolved.
To be clear: HRC is accused not only of conducting official business in a manner that was completely unauthorized from an infosec perspective and in direct violation of both IC standards and a Presidential Executive Order; she also apparently ordered a subordinate who needed to send her classified materials to "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure" [0]. To me this sounds like her giving a direct order to mishandle classified information.
It sounds like you're on Team Hillary and that's fine, we all have our political opinions. I do not think that your characterization of Petraeus' actions as "MUCH worse" than HRC's is accurate, either in terms of a reasonable-person evaluation of the severity of each respective (alleged in HRC's case) infraction or in terms of how the IC punishes these kinds of transgressions. They are normally merciless when it comes to people intentionally violating the integrity of classified information systems. Merciless.
[0]: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-c...
No accusations have been leveled at Clinton, except in the press. That is, she has not been indicted, arrested, or charged.
That's not a "Team Hillary" thing, that is the literal truth of the legal situation.
Petraeus was charged and convicted.
That's your definition of "accusation"? By that standard, O.J. Simpson has no remaining accusations of homicide.