He was given a sweet deal as he has dirt on many of them.
Yeah...a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified materials.
When set next to Hillary's "gross negligence" charge, the only real difference here is Petraeus knew he had classified material in his possession and lied about it. Hillary...???...plausible deniability? No classified marking on documents (email attachments), no way to truly know if she knew with 100% certainty that the content of what she received did, in fact, contain classified information. Yes, someone in her position should have made that automatic presumption that everything she received had the potential of containing classified information, but without the markings she can rightly stand behind "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" despite the fact that the FBI did recover traces of classified information in the emails they recovered from her server.
I don't mean to rehash this situation because it's been debated to death already, but I still contend that she gets off the hook here on two points:
1) no classified markings on emails/documents she received or sent
- meaning she can always play stupid with this whether she truly knew what she was had or not;
and,
2) no confirmed server hacks
- which means that as long as no classified material purposely fell into the wrong hands, she remains in the clear. The fact that she (or her assistants/hired hands - attorneys) deleted what was assumed to be unclassified emails not meant for archiving may give the FBI reason to believe she somehow tried to do the right thing, it's still a breach of protocol.
Snake in the grass...?...maybe, but as long as there's no smoking gun which was the case with Petraeus, she'll remain in the clear behind "plausible deniability" and the FBI may have...
may have...helped her get away with it.
Okay...:rantoff:...back to the poll at-hand.