Retired four-star general admits leaking top-secret info to media

[cstanleytech]

Source: CNN

By Laura Jarrett, CNN
Updated 8:03 PM ET, Mon October 17, 2016

Washington, D.C. (CNN)The former vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff pled guilty in federal court Monday, admitting he lied to the FBI when questioned about whether he provided two journalists with top secret information in 2012.

Retired four-star Gen. James Cartwright sat quietly with his attorney, former White House Counsel Gregory Craig, as Assistant US Attorney Leo J. Wise described the facts underlying the single charge of making false statements to federal investigators.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/general-cartwright-pleads-guilty-leaking-information/index.html

---

So why is this any different than Manning or Snowden to the government?

[RKP5637]

1. Excellent question, he'll likely get a free pass, sucks, doesn't it.

[Missn-Hitch]

11. 6 months. So, yep. Cheers.

[Thinkingabout]

2. What is the difference, Cartwright pled guilty, did I miss it when Snowden pled guilty.

[George II]

3. He didn't go to China to give them to the Chinese, then to Moscow to give them to the Russians.

And he was in a court of law to face his fate, unlike Snowden.

[cstanleytech]

4. No disagreement there but this General did lie about it yet he is being given a pass and only going

to have to serve a few months in prison, it just seems wrong that he is getting off so light.

[George II]

6. We don't know what sentence Snowden may get b/c he's been too chickenshit to face is accusers.

[cstanleytech]

9. I suspect Snowden if he is ever arrested, tried and convicted will get atleast as many years as

Manning did if not more.

[JRLeft]

10. You think Snowden derserves prison? We're suppose to protect whistleblowers not punish them.

Funny how a lot of democrats like whistleblowers when they are airing out republicans but the moment it's done to a democrat that stance goes right out of the window.

[zentrum]

12. ^^This^^

[msanthrope]

13. He's not a whislteblower. nt

[cstanleytech]

15. True, he isnt. nt

[JRLeft]

17. He's not? You guys kill me if had leaked that information under Bush he would be your hero.

There will be more people like Snowden under republican presidents and bet your opinion will change under a right wing administration.

[cstanleytech]

22. No he is not because a whistleblower does not do a mass release of everything they can

get their hands on.
Manning made the same mistake as well as the release of the helicopter attack video footage would have fallen within whistleblower area but Manning didnt confine the release to only that information relevant to that attack rather Manning did a builk release.
Snowden did the same thing as he released details of spying on other governments.

[msanthrope]

25. he wouldn't have been a whistleblower under Bush, either. nt

[George II]

16. I think Snowden should be here in the US to face his accusers. Plain and simple he's a coward.

[JRLeft]

18. More like he leaked info under democratic president. How dare he.

[Bradical79]

23. Basically, the plea deal protects against more exposure

Basically, they most likely decided a contested trial risks exposing more specific info about about the operation(Stuxnet) he spoke to reporters about. Israel had already delayed the trial too since it was a joint opperation.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/retired-general-charged-in-probe-of-classified-information-disclosure-229891

[bagelsforbreakfast]

5. where are his 7 Benghazigate congressional inquiries for ACTUALLY GIVING out top secret info?

Or is he a republican?

[Old and In the Way]

7. Best questionon this thread! Whereis Gowdy where he might dosome good?

Oh, not a Democrat....so no foul.

[InkAddict]

8. Loose lips sink ships, but...

things are so bizarre anyway - who would believe anything I revealed. Well, there's Top Secret, there's Secret, there's Secret (Public Trust); Classified, and my gaslighting. Interesting sentencing date.

[nitpicker]

14. From the DoJ PR

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-vice-chairman-joint-chiefs-staff-pleads-guilty-federal-felony-leak-investigation

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, October 17, 2016

Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Pleads Guilty to Federal Felony in Leak Investigation

Retired General James E. Cartwright, 67, of Gainesville, Virginia, pleaded guilty to making false statements in connection with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The guilty plea was entered in the District of Columbia.
(snip)

On Sept. 1, 2011, Cartwright retired from the U.S. Marine Corps. Upon his retirement, Cartwright maintained his top secret clearance. The clearance enabled him to engage in consulting and private employment, including sitting on a special committee of the board of directors of a defense contractor, which oversaw the company’s classified U.S. government contracts. At the time of his retirement, Cartwright again signed a “Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement,” which included warnings “that unauthorized disclosure…by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”

Between January and June 2012, Cartwright disclosed classified information to two reporters without authorization. Some of the information disclosed to the reporters was classified at the top secret level. Each reporter included the classified information in published articles. In addition, the classified information that Cartwright communicated to one reporter was included in a book.

FBI agents interviewed Cartwright on Nov. 2, 2012. During the interview, Cartwright gave false information to the interviewing agents, including falsely stating that he did not provide or confirm classified information to the first reporter and was not the source of any of the quotes and statements in that reporter’s book. In addition, Cartwright falsely stated that he had never discussed a particular country with the second reporter, when in fact, Cartwright had confirmed classified information about that country in an email to the reporter.

Cartwright faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison for making false statements to federal investigators. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. The sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon has scheduled sentencing for January 17, 2017.
(snip)

[dgibby]

19. So, he's guilty of

lying under oath, but hasn't been adjudicated for leaking classified info, right, or am I reading this wrong?

[Bradical79]

20. Guilty of lying to the FBI

He pled guilty to that charge. A Politico post had a pretty good write up on the reasoning vehind that:

The false statement charge has benefits for both the defense and the government compared with the possibility of a contested public trial on the more serious charge of intentionally disclosing classified information.
With the plea, the defense limits the potential of two or perhaps more leak-related charges under the Espionage Act, carrying a possible 10-year term on each. In addition, an obstruction-of-justice charge is often added when prosecutors believe witnesses have lied to investigators.
However, at any trial the government would face the possibility of more disclosures about the highly-classified intelligence operation at issue. The probe into the episode began in 2012 and has dragged on for more than four years, reportedly delayed by Israeli concerns that a public prosecution would expose intelligence methods.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/retired-general-charged-in-probe-of-classified-information-disclosure-229891#ixzz4NRplULBY
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[dgibby]

21. Thanks.

Looks like there might be another shoe to drop.

[Bradical79]

24. Yeah, these things aren't always comparable

Snowden, Manning, and ex-General Cartwright cases are all pretty unique cases in their own respects, imo. Unfortunately, the nature of the sorts of cases mean outsiders like us just aren't going to have all the information available to form opinions on.

Like on Snowden. I tend to lean heavily "pro-Snowden" camp, but there's still a lot of specifics I'm not going to know because of how much is concerning still classified information.

Then on Manning, despite exposing a possible war crime, she just engaged in a reckless info dump of hundreds of thousands of documents. I'm more concerned about her treatment in prison than the conviction itself.