The conviction against former CIA Director and retired Gen. David Petraeus for sharing classified information with his biographer won’t necessarily prevent his confirmation as secretary of state, according to prominent Senate Republicans.
“He is a very capable person and I think it’s totally reasonable that the president-elect evaluate whether he’s the person that a President Trump would need to do that job,” Missouri’s Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Senate Republican leadership, told the Washington Examiner. “I don’t think it’s disqualifying.”
President-elect Trump hasn’t chosen a nominee yet, but the parade of contenders marching into Trump Tower and his team’s public debate about the shortlist has stoked congressional discussion. The nomination of Petraeus would worry some of the Republicans who pummeled Hillary Clinton for having classified information on her private email server, but not all are worried to the point of trying to influence Trump’s decision.
“For me, it’s a matter of, you look at it and you put it in proper perspective, and it’s a negative for him but there are some real positives for him as well,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told the Washington Examiner. “For most of us, I think we’re just trying to keep our powder dry. We’ll look at all of the recommendations with at least a nod toward the new president as having the opportunity to choose the right people for the cabinet and we’ll look at whether or not there are disqualifying issues with each one of them, just like I’m sure he’ll do as well.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has taken a different approach. The libertarian-leaning senator is working publicly and privately to rally opposition against the majority of Trump’s short list, including Petraeus.
“I think there’s going to be the problem that everything we complained about with Hillary Clinton revealing emails that were classified or not treating them appropriately are the same issues for Petraeus,” Paul said Tuesday. “So I don’t know how we can, with a straight face, say, ‘Oh, we’re going to appoint someone to a Cabinet position who actually pled guilty to a similar offense.'”
He’s not alone in thinking that. “I know that there will be others who have concerns, even others who are not on the committee, I’m certain of it,” another Senate Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Examiner. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that if [Petraeus is nominated] that he won’t get confirmed, but it would be a very risky proposition.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a longtime foreign policy foil of Paul’s, disagrees and makes a distinction between Petraeus’ conviction and the accusations against Clinton. “Unlike Secretary Clinton, we know what he did,” Graham said. “We know what he did was wrong. He said it was wrong, he accepted punishment for his wrongdoing and that’s a well-defined issue. The question is, does he have a life going forward? I think he does … I would certainly support his nomination.”
For Paul, the criticism of Petraeus is part of a broader attempt to influence Trump’s nomination choices. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a panel of 10 Republicans and nine Democrats with jurisdiction over the State Department, Paul could have an outsized influence on the confirmation process.
“What I want is somebody who understands that the Iraq War was a mistake, the nation-building has been a mistake, and that regime change has been a mistake,” Paul told CNN. “These are things that Donald Trump has expressed and I believe and agree with completely, which is why I supported him.
He has launched preemptive strikes on former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, two of the early favorites for the nomination. And after referring to Mitt Romney as “a reasonable, even keel” option for secretary of State last week, Paul walked back the compliment.
“We need to know more about what Romney’s viewpoint is,” Paul told Politico. “I haven’t heard a lot from him that parallels [Trump], so I want to hear from him that he understands the historical significance of the Iraq War, making us less safe, making the region less safe and emboldening Iran. If people don’t understand the unintended consequences of the Iraq War, I don’t think they understand what Donald Trump said in the election.”
Paul seems to be erecting obstacles to every secretary of state contender except Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a finalist whom he has complimented. “As head of the Foreign Relations Committee, I think he’s interacted with many of our foreign leaders,” Paul said on CBS. “And I think that’s what you want, is a reasonable, calming hand at the State Department.”
There are real limits to Paul’s power, however. He can cast the decisive vote at the committee level, but only if the Democratic members all vote against the nominee. It’s not certain that would happen, given the traditional deference shown to presidential cabinet picks. “I voted for all their people, I’d expect some of them to vote for our people,” Graham said. Corker would likely gain the most Democratic votes and “sail through” the hearings, according to multiple Senate GOP aides familiar with the committee.
If Paul and nine Democrats were to vote against a given nominee, that would embarrass Trump, but it wouldn’t necessarily block the confirmation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could bring the nomination to the floor over the objection of the committee, if 60 senators voted to allow it.
“All I can say with some certainty is that, Senator Paul, whom I respect, is probably not going to drive the train in terms of confirmation,” Graham concluded.
