Trump Considers Petraeus for Top Job, But His Security Violations Were Worse Than Clinton’s

“Obstruction of justice, intentional misconduct and [a] vast quantity of information.”

Bob Leverone/AP

After months of attacking and threatening to jail Hillary Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information, President-elect Donald Trump has apparently decided none of that stuff really matters. Trump is meeting today with retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus to consider him for Clinton’s former job as Secretary of State. Petraeus pleaded guilty last year to sharing classified information with his mistress in a case that was more serious than the Clinton email server episode. 

Petraeus admitted to passing secret information to Paula Broadwell, a former Army officer with whom he had an affair while she was writing a biography of him in 2011 and 2012. Petraeus was CIA director at the time, and he gave Broadwell eight notebooks of highly sensitive information that, according to the Washington Post, “included code words for secret intelligence programs, identities of covert officers, war strategy and deliberative discussions with the National Security Council.” The scandal broke in 2012 when Broadwell began harassing Jill Kelley, a Tampa socialite whom she may have thought was making advances on Petraeus. Kelley went to the FBI, which discovered intimate emails between Broadwell and Petraeus and  uncovered his security breaches, forcing him to resign as CIA director in 2012. In a plea deal, Petraeus acknowledged that his actions had been “in all respects knowing and deliberate, and were not committed by mistake, accident or another innocent reason.” He also lied to FBI investigators, telling them he had not given secrets to Broadwell, a charge that is a felony in itself. He was eventually charged with only a misdemeanor and sentenced to two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine.

Trump often claimed during the campaign that Petraeus’ case was far less serious than Clinton’s, but FBI Director James Comey said the truth was the exact opposite. During a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in July, Comey contrasted Petraeus’ case to Clinton’s in response to Rep Elijah Cummings’ (D-Md.) question: “Do you agree with the claim that General Petraeus, and I quote, ‘Got in trouble for far less,’ end of quote? Do you agree with that statement?”

“No, it’s the reverse,” Comey replied.

Days before the hearing, Comey announced that the FBI would not bring charges against Clinton, saying there was no evidence that Clinton or her staff had intentionally mishandled or deleted the information. Petraeus’ case, however, was a clear-cut and grave violation, and Comey did not mince words. “The Petraeus case, in my mind, indicates the kind of cases that the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute,” he said. “You have obstruction of justice, intentional misconduct and [a] vast quantity of information.”

If Petraeus receives a job in the Trump administration, he won’t be the only former general in the new administration who committed serious security violations. According to a recent article in the New Yorker, soon-to-be National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a onetime Army general and Defense Intelligence Agency director, was investigated for improperly giving classified information to other NATO countries and “had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.” The latter action is a major violation of security procedures for top-secret information, which is held in tightly controlled facilities that ban outside phone and Internet connections. Former NSA lawyer Susan Hennessey said on Twitter, “Honestly, other than actual espionage, I’ve never seen as serious a willful security breach.”

As a candidate, Trump professed great scorn for anyone who improperly handles classified information. Yet as a president-elect, he has changed his tune: from lock-her-up to let-them-in.


Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.


We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.