According to ABC News, the FBI is currently investigating Paula Broadwell for possessing classified information in her home and on her computer:
A source familiar with the case also told ABC News that Broadwell admitted to the FBI she took documents from secure government buildings. The government demanded that they all be given back, and when federal agents descended on her North Carolina home on Monday night it was a pre-arranged meeting.
Prosecutors are now determining whether to charge Broadwell with a crime, and this morning the FBI and military are pouring over the material. The 40-year-old author, who wrote the biography on Gen. Petraeus “All In,” is cooperating and the case, which is complicated by the fact that as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Military Reserve she had security clearance to review the documents.
The FBI found classified material on a computer voluntarily handed over by Broadwell earlier in the investigation. Prosecutors will now have to determine how important the classified material is before making a final decision. Authorities could decide to seek disciplinary action against her rather than pursue charges.
I agree with Max about the government’s tendency to overclassify. For all we know, the information Broadwell had could have been completely mundane. There are conflicting stories about whether she had a security clearance, but given her military and intelligence background, it’s seems likely she did. In that case, she would have been allowed access to classified information on her own, regardless of her relationship with Petraeus.
Without knowing more details, it’s impossible to say if the FBI investigation is proper and necessary. But it is interesting that it’s being taken up again now, especially if the AP’s timeline is accurate:
Late Summer 2012— Attorney General Eric Holder is notified. By this time, the FBI has long since concluded there was no national security breach, but continues investigating whether Petraeus had any role in the harassing emails sent to Kelley.
If the FBI already determined there was no security breach over the summer, why rehash this again now? Were they initially mistaken, and has something new been discovered? It’s one thing if there is truly a national security concern, but I’m curious as to why a reportedly “concluded” issue has been reopened.
A security clearance itself is not sufficient to possess classified material. She would probably need to show a legitimate "need to know" and classified material has to be handled (marked, transported and stored) in a specific way. Having it "at home" or storing it on a computer or in a space not cleared for storing such info would be blatantly illegal and subject to prosecution no matter what clearance she possessed.
As far as Broadwell's "current status," what possibilities other than Active Duty or Reserve, and we do know that she isn't Active Duty, don't we? As far as her rank, is it all that exceptional that an intelligence officer with a PhD from Harvard should be promoted to Lt Col almost 20 years after graduating West Point? (Did she earn a PhD from Harvard? The news reports have been a bit confusing on that score, especially since they have also said that she is currently working on a PhD from Kings College, London in counter-terrorism.) n nWhat I find most extraordinary is that this married 40-year-old West Point grad, mother of 2 who has accomplished what she has accomplished acted in a manner not unlike that of a 15-year-old girl, and a rather immature one at that. She addressed what were reportedly threatening and harrassing e-mails to this Kelley woman (who is a bit dubious herself, claiming "diplomatic" privileges) because she saw her as a "seductress" after 4-star generals?! Its not the affair itself that is especially remarkable, it is how it all came to be exposed through those ill-advised (understatement) e-mails.
My best guess is that she has two Masters' Degrees and is currently working on her Doctorate. And Petraeus is (or was) on her committee — the term I saw was one of her dissertation advisers — which makes things interesting. n nAs I understand it, for officers, there are multiple levels of "Reserve" status, ranging from being actively in a Reserve Unit — monthly and summer drills and the rest — to "Individual Ready Reserve — to various situations where you are essentially "mothballed." This all has to do with the pension — if you have 20 years active duty you can "retire" at that point (eg early '40s) and get your pension (just like enlisted guys), if your service is in the Reserves, you have to wait until age 60 (I think) and then get it. There is also the "TriCare" health insurance benefits, PX privileges (tax free booze), USAA auto insurance and a few other things. n nI don't believe that you can be promoted in all fashions of Reserve status – you can be in an Active Reserve unit – I know someone who spent his entire career there — but I am not sure about other categories. And remember that people in the Active Reserves usually have full-time jobs — and it would be ideal for a doctoral candidate. n nBut take your second paragraph — unless she completely came apart psychologically — there is a very fine line between genius and insanity and highly intelligent high-performers are the ones who crash & burn the most visibly — unless she came apart, something like this would be so out of character for someone who accomplished what she did that I am having trouble believing that really is what we are seeing here. It may be what people want us to see, but still….
Yes, there are those "subcategories" of Reserve status, but not a major divide between them like there is between Active Duty (and Reserve on Active Duty) and Reserve in any of those categories. One may slide back and forth between Active Reserves and IRR. The retirement pension for 20 or more "good" years of service (>50 points per year) depends on the rank at which one retires, the number of 'good" years, and the total number of points for time on Active Duty (365 per year) and in Reserve status (1 point for 4 hours of drill). USAA auto insurance is not a government-provided benefit and doesn't require one to be retired from military service. Anyway, that's what I know or think I know about it, but don't think any of this matters much, if at all, where Broadwell is concerned. (If she were still in the Reserves, she might have been called up at some time to deploy.) n
And as for my second paragraph, we are in general agreement there, except that I can't get out of my head the "15-year-old girl" business. It is so whacky that she sent those e-mails and that those e-mails led to the unraveling of everything that it would strained credulity if used as a fictional device in a book or movie. It's not as though someone walked in on them, or a spouse stumbled upon correspondence or curious credit card charges, or any of the other commonplace ways in which adulterors are tripped up. And it's not like we are talking about ordinary folk.
I learned long ago to trust my gut instinct regardless of what things first appear to be. n nMy gut instinct is that neither one of them is going to do something like this. So what is wrong? Did they both have concurrent nervious breakdowns, possibly, but I am more inclined to believe that something else is going on here.
Anyway, let me throw this out for the military people out there: If Broadwell argues that her possession of the classified documents is relative to her status as an Army Officer — possibly even a classified TDX (temporary duty assignment) — could she even be tried in a civilian court? n nI am thinking she couldn't be because – arguably – whatever misdeeds she did, she did as a soldier and the UCMJ would apply. There would be a double jeopardy question as well as both a civilian and military trial are technically federal trials — memory is that the equivalent of a circuit court for military is the "court of military appeals" and then it could go to the US Supreme Court.