Interesting factoid:

[I B Hankering]

Nary a word on Bowe Bergdahl, but the DOJ *leaks* that they want to prosecute Petraeus ...

What Petraeus is accused of is leaking classified documents to a journalist. That's a very specific crime, falling under the Espionage Act of 1917. Since that law's passage almost a century ago, a total of 11 people have been prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing that Petraeus is accused of. Of those 11, seven have been prosecuted by the Odumbo administration. In other words, in the first 92 years of the law, four people were charged, but since 2009 seven more have faced (and received, in some cases) jail time for leaking classified documents to journalists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...b_6459382.html

This is what Politico says:

Petraeus has denied passing the documents to Broadwell, and she backs that assertion. Whether Petraeus is guilty or innocent, this leak is as unfair to him as it is predictable. Prosecutors have long leaked like this whenever they can’t make a case against a suspect and hope that a newspaper story will panic him into a plea bargain. The identity of the leakers—and their motivations for leaking—are almost as good a news story as the decision to prosecute... Better to speculate that the prosecutors who have been working on the Petraeus case for two years, but don’t really have a case, took the initiative, hoping to score a last scalp as the Holder era fades and their team disbands

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3OvsVvN00

[JD Barleycorn]

Of course we should know that Petraeus was the head of the CIA when Benghazi went down. I am also sure that he has signed a multitude of forms denying him the right to say what happened. This is the Chicago way. Kick a man when he's down even though he is a man of honor and won't talk.