Posted on 11/10/2012 3:17:48 PM PST by thouworm
The F.B.I. investigation that led to the resignation of David H. Petraeus as C.I.A. director on Friday began with a complaint several months ago about “harassing” e-mails sent by Paula Broadwell, Mr. Petraeus’s biographer, to an unidentified third person, a government official briefed on the case said Saturday....
The person who complained about harassing messages from Ms. Broadwell, according to the official, was not a family member or a government official. One Congressional official who was briefed on the matter on Friday said senior intelligence officials had explained that the F.B.I. investigation “started with two women.”
...A senior intelligence official said Saturday that Mr. Clapper had learned of Mr. Petraeus’s situation only when the F.B.I. notified him about 5 p.m. on Tuesday. That night and the next day, the official said, the two men discussed the situation, and Mr. Clapper told Mr. Petraeus “that he thought the right thing to do would be to resign,” the intelligence official said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Doesn’t everyone know that any email that is sent has the potential to be read by anyone in your organization?
Emails are never private.
Sheesh. This guy lead our military and doesn’t know that?
FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption.
I thought maybe it was his wife (Holly, a government employee in DC) but evidently not. How many women was he carrying on with? He doesn’t look like a stud muffin, but power and the challenge of (theoretical)unattainability seem to be a major aphrodisiac for many women.
Still, this was all clearly set up as the Obama October Surprise because Bambi & Co. assumed Petraeus was going to be the VP nominee.
However, it didn’t work out that way, so they were able to have this revelation and his resignation postponed till after the election, also hoping that this would keep him from testifying on Benghazi.
Petraeus strikes me as very loyal to whoever is in charge at a given moment, so I don’t think he’s going to do anything that might damage Bambi now. However, I don’t think he’d lie under oath. So he’ll fade into the twilight, which Obama will be only too happy to let him do.
Ping
Every major story I have seen about this differs widely on the facts. Here is another.
Theory: Could the Obama Adm have been digging up dirt on Petraeus back when he was feared to be Romney’s VP choice, and then when he wasn’t, they held their dirt for a rainy day. The rainy day came on Sept. 11th.
They fear exposure over selling weapons to Al Qaeda more than they do their negligence in allowing 4 American citizens die.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
“hoping that this would keep him from testifying on Benghazi.”
Can’t congress subpoena him whether he is holding an office or not?
I’m not sure how leaking this would stop the hearing. They can’t use this as blackmail — he is already out. I wonder if the Obama goons have more on him?
HAH! My first thought!
Predictable and what party is it that has the war on women?
“Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.”
Add me!
Would also explain why he flat-out lied about the protest & YouTube video.
Will you give some links or a short paragraph or two about your relevant knowledge about Patraeus?
I think most on FR have never seen it....and, I for one, would like to be reminded. You have information and theories that can’t be found with a Google search of Petraeus. We need to be reminded.
Afghanistan was barely even a subject of conversation in this campaign (that itself should be the topic of some investigative reporting), and with mounting U.S. casualties over there in the last couple of years Petraeus would be seen as a huge liability for anyone who was linked to him.
Yes, they can.....and have already said as much about him.
The Lamestream media is in complete cover up mode. Now the WaPo and NYT have identical articles that gives the impression that this all developed 2 weeks ago. That is not what was reported when the story first broke.
Everyone needs to check out the NewsMax article on this from yesterday for an alternate timeline. I think 0zer0 set Petraeus up from day one and the FBI had to know about this affair in real time. According to the article, the FBI suspected the issue in the Spring 2011 when Petraeus was commander in Afghanistan. 0zer0 appointed Petraeus to CIA in April 2011, but he didn’t assume the office until Sep 2011.
The article says the FBI was investigating this for months because Petraeus was sending thousands of emails to her. That had to be in 2011. This means that the FBI had to know what was going on in real time, probably as Petraeus was being vetted for the CIA post, and certainly before he was confirmed, and that is why they couldn’t believe 0zer0 wouldn’t fire this guy, let alone hire the guy.
I don’t see any explanation other than 0zer0 knew about this (or someone high up in the admin did, and didn’t tell anyone... FBI director Mueller had to know, and that means Holder had to know, and probably National Security Director Donolon). That means 0zer0 had to know, and is lying about this when the WH says they first found out about it Wednesday after the election.
I bet 0zer0 knew Petraeus was compromised when he appointed him and counted on this trump card to be used against Petraeus when he needed it, and Benghazi is it. The timeline proves it.
Whether Petraeus has any smoking gun information and will spill it is completely unknown. But for me, I am convinced that 0zer0 knew about the affair and deliberately appointed and retained an obviously compromised CIA director to have something to blackmail him with later. This explains why a compromised CIA director was ok to appoint and retain for over a year, but now a year after the affair, is a liability only because Benghazi is hitting the fan. This confirms everything you need to know about 0zer0.
Wanna know my pet name for Abraham Lincoln?
I used to call him "Mr. Fuzzy Buddy McFuzzbutt."
Yes I did.
posted 7 before I saw your 6. GMTA, lol.
Michael Morell is going to testify in Petraeus’ place this week. He can obfuscate in all kinds of ways.
And even if they get Petraeus to testify in the future, he can’t reveal classified info, from what I have read. In other words, his testimony will be more limited than it otherwise would have been.
Yes, please!
Folks, the affair was over. In all the US government, including generals and Nat’l Security officials, you really thing Patraeus was the only one worthy of an investigation into his personal life? Think ANY others have affairs, are gay, etc? And it was necessary to confront him right now, not when the affair was active, not when he was nominated?
I do not remember anyone this was done to in my lifetime, and I’m not young.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.