Obama administration determined to stop Petraeus testimony on Benghazi attack.

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I've seen mention of "several months" ...

"A federal law enforcement official told USA TODAY that the investigation, which began months ago, is largely complete and that a decision on possible charges would be up to prosecutors."

But several or four is largely irrelevant ... until one knows the sequence of exactly when each particular bit of data in the investigation was acquired ...

I've also pointed out I believe that the initial focus of the investigation was not on Petraeus ... but some woman who was sending harassing emails to another ... and the affair with Broadwell came up somewhere in the course of the investigation ...

"During the investigation, which began months ago, authorities allegedly learned of a relationship between Broadwell and the CIA director, said the official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to comment publicly."

And it seems I recall seeing some reporting that the first time the FBI talked to him was just a few weeks ago ...

"Although the official said there was no evidence of a breach, authorities discussed the inquiry and the findings with Petraeus "a couple of weeks ago.''

Petraeus investigation triggered by e-mail threats


Let me ask you this:

Can you even read and comprehend what the words actually mean ?

Can you point to any legitimate news organization which has sources alleging that it was known in the investigation that Petraeus was somehow involved four months ago ?

Or is this just another one of them deals where you pulled something out of your *** ?

How long should the FBI wait before notifying the President of an investigation that involves their CIA Director?
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Heheheh ... you just can't let it go ... what a crack up ...

332 vs. 206 ...

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that FBI or CIA or DoD should inundate the Chief Executive with all possible "security breaches", threats, or other dire matters of national security ... before they make some effort to ascertain whether there is actually a real problem ?

They ascertained at some point there wasn't a problem. Is it credible that the FBI would have an investigation that involves the CIA Director and not at some point notify the president? Yes or no?
 
Armada Transportation

Armada Transportation

419-214-4155
Advertiser
Hiring Sprinter Owner Operators

Dear Drivers and Owner OperatorsAre you an ambitious, independent sprinter van driver with a passion for the open road? We invite you to become a part of our dynamic team as a Owner-Operator!Why Choose Us?✓ Unparalleled Independence: As an Owner-Operator, you are your own boss! Take control of your schedule, work on your terms.✓ Lucra ... Apply Today!

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
How long should the FBI wait before notifying the President of an investigation that involves their CIA Director?

Realistically, I would say about 24 hours max. That's also about how long they are supposed to wait before notifying at least the chairman and the ranking members of the Intelligence Committee. It's supposed to be done immediately. That doesn't mean notification should have been given the moment they stumbled upon Patraeus' involvement, butt once it was determined that he was now part odd the investigation, certainly at the time they actually talked with Patraeus, notification should have been given with 24 hours of that conversation.

As a side note, don't you just love it how, when they really don't know who to point the finger at, they just say "the <president's name> administration" as if the entire administration was somehow in on it, and <president's name> himself was the one making the the detailed day-to-day decisions on everything.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
From NBC News
After investigating a potential case of "cyber-harassment" for several months, the FBI wrapped up its case after interviewing Paula Broadwell -- the biographer of former CIA director David Petraeus -- on Friday, Nov. 2, four days before the presidential election, a senior U.S. law enforcement official told NBC News.

It was the second time that FBI agents had questioned Broadwell in the probe and during both interviews she acknowledged having had an affair with Petraeus, the official said. Petraeus himself had been questioned a few days earlier and also acknowledged the affair, the official said.

The dual interviews the week of Oct. 29 -- among the last to be conducted by the FBI in the case -- allowed the FBI to formally conclude there was no basis for criminal charges in the matter. This explains why the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wasn't told about the probe until the following Tuesday, Nov. 6, election day, the official said.

The official offered new details about the FBI investigation -- and a more precise timeline of key events-- in order to rebut suggestions that senior law enforcement officials held back key information about the Petraeus matter until after the election.

The FBI and Justice Department's decisions on the case were not governed by the political calendar, the official asserted. Nor, the official said, were they influenced by a phone call from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's office to the FBI on Oct. 31 asserting that it had heard from a FBI whistleblower who raised concerns that the Petraeus matter was being covered up or not being taken seriously.

"This had nothing to do with the election," the official said. Moreover the official added, Cantor's office was told that the case was being actively investigated by the FBI when it raised the matter on Oct. 31, and so it would have been wrong for the FBI or Justice Department to inform higher level officials in the administration about the probe earlier -- because they were unsure at that point what they were dealing with. In the end, according to multiple officials, investigators determined there was no criminal wrongdoing.

The woman who complained of being harassed by Paula Broadwell, General David Petraeus' biographer, has been identified as Jill Kelley, 37, a senior official tells NBC News. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.

According to the senior official, the investigation began several months ago when a woman reported to the FBI she had received anonymous-- and harassing -- emails from a person she didn't know. Multiple government officials tell NBC News that the woman was Jill Kelley, who lives in Tampa, Florida. Kelley and her husband, officials say, are close friends of the Petraeus family.

The FBI viewed the matter as a potential case of "cyber-harassment" and it was handled "regionally" with federal prosecutors working with the FBI on the matter, the official said. At first, neither Kelley nor the FBI knew who was sending the harassing emails-- because they came from accounts that were not immediately identifiable. But the FBI was eventually able to determine they came from Broadwell and then obtained access to her regular email account. It was only then that the FBI discovered, through her email exchanges with Petraeus, an apparent relationship between the two of them, the official said.

The FBI continued investigating the matter and was close to wrapping up the case late in October, the official said. Agents finally interviewed Petraeus the week of Oct. 29 and then re-interviewed Broadwell, allowing them to complete their investigation, according to multiple officials. It was only at that point that the decision was made to pass along information about the case to Clapper, the senior law enforcement official said, setting in motion the chain of events that led to Petraeus' resignation.

And there you have it. All wrapped up nice and neat.

Move along now, nothing to see here, move along.


Except.... few of the reports identifying this woman, who received threatening e-mails, and the first thing she thought of was to alert the FBI about them (which is odd, since most people would either ignore them, or maybe call the local police), have told us who this Jill Kelley is.

Turns out, Jill Kelley is the State Department's liaison to the military's Joint Special Operations Command. Ruh Roh, Reorge.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
And there you have it. All wrapped up nice and neat.

Move along now, nothing to see here, move along.
If the "whistleblower" (Cantor's characterization) really has anything (ahh ... like actual knowledge) that indicates that the investigation was being ran politically or suppressed/withheld from the appropriate parties, then he needs to come forward and sing ...

And from what I understand about the immediate notification thing it isn't quite as clear as you seem to suggest - as a consequence of vagueness in the governing language. IOW, there's a judgement call involved.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
They ascertained at some point there wasn't a problem. Is it credible that the FBI would have an investigation that involves the CIA Director and not at some point notify the president? Yes or no?
Yes, it is credible.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
And from what I understand about the immediate notification thing it isn't quite as clear as you seem to suggest - as a consequence of vagueness in the governing language. IOW, there's a judgement call involved.
The law also states any investigation of anything "substantial", so there's a lot of wiggle room for such judgement there, too.

As with most things in government, how timely and how substantial something is will be determined by whomever it is supposed to be reported to, rather than who is doing the reporting.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
So here's the relevant question with regard to the "taking out" of Gen. David Petraeus:

Cui Bono ? (who benefits ?)

Who would want to see this man gone from his post at CIA ?

And why ?

Why did Eric Cantor - the Republican House Majority Leader - sit on this ... when he knew about it several weeks before the election ?

Now ... ain't that kinda odd ...
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
In order to answer that question, you must first determine if someone did, in fact, set about to take him out, and that he didn't simply do this to himself. It's possible, but it's going to be hard to believe that someone set him up to have an affair in order for the FBI to later stumble upon it in other to take him out. Since most any spook who gets caught having an affair is likely to be taken out, to prevent blackmail, then the one to benefit most from that is the American people.

What we still don't know, however, is the date the FBI investigation first began, the date on which they discovered any involvement of Patraeus, and on what date the "whistlblower" made the call (not that whistleblower is an accurate term in this case). Did Cantor know about it for weeks? I'm not so sure. But, Cantor could have known about it from day one and it wouldn't really have mattered how long he "sat" on it, since it's not really his job to leak stuff to the press, especially things about ongoing FBI investigations.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
In order to answer that question, you must first determine if someone did, in fact, set about to take him out, and that he didn't simply do this to himself.
... it was meant to posed as a hypothetical ...

It's possible, but it's going to be hard to believe that someone set him up to have an affair in order for the FBI to later stumble upon it in other to take him out.
Really ... why ?

And why couldn't one cause the FBI to stumble on it ?

The_History_of_the_Honey_Trap

Since most any spook who gets caught having an affair is likely to be taken out, to prevent blackmail, the the one to benefit most from that is the American people.
Who benefits the most may be immaterial to whoever is seeking to derive some particular benefit ... provided they get the benefit they seek as well ...

What we still don't know, however, is the date the FBI investigation first began, the date on which they discovered any involvement of Patraeus, and on what date the "whistlblower" made the call (not that whistleblower is an accurate term in this case).
That's true - but we do know that Cantor knew about it back around the 25th or 26th of October - because he's said so:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cantor-whistleblower-told-me-about-petraeus-2012-11ERIC CANTOR: I Knew About The Petraeus Scandal Two Weeks Ago And I Didn't Say Anything


Cantor could have known about it from day one and it wouldn't really have mattered how long he "sat" on it, since it's not really his job to leak stuff to the press, especially things about ongoing FBI investigations.
Point is you have many here screeching about how this was (or may have been) withheld by the Obama administration ... for political reasons ... in terms of influencing an election ...

Yet a senior Republican knew about it ... and didn't disclose it ... funny that ...
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Now this here is kinda interesting ... the whole article is worth a read ... but here's a little taste:

Washington Asks: What to Do About Israel?

WASHINGTON — Some topics are so inflammatory that they are never discussed without first inserting a number of caveats. And so, when Anthony Cordesman, a foreign policy dignitary in this town’s think tank circuit, dropped an article on Wednesday headlined “Israel as a Strategic Liability,” he made sure to open with a plethora of qualifications ...

... The list of recent moves by the Netanyahu government that potentially threaten American interests has grown steadily, many foreign policy experts argue. The violence that broke out when Israeli commandos stormed aboard a Gaza flotilla last week chilled American relations with a key Muslim ally, Turkey. The Gaza fight also makes it more difficult for America to rally a coalition that includes Arab and Muslim states against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr. Netanyahu’s refusal to stop Jewish housing construction in Arab East Jerusalem also strains American ties with Arab allies. It also makes reaching an eventual peace deal, which many administration officials believe is critical to America’s broader interests in the Muslim world, even more difficult.

Both President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have made the link in recent months between the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict and American security interests. During a press conference in April, Mr. Obama declared that conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure”; he drew an explicit tie between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

General Petraeus sounded a similar theme in Congressional testimony earlier this year, when he said that the lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for America. After a furor erupted, he said he wasn’t suggesting that soldiers were being put in harm’s way by American support for Israel, and he went to great lengths to point out the importance of America’s strategic partnership with Israel.

"But the status quo is unsustainable," he said in an interview Friday. "If you don’t achieve progress in a just and lasting Mideast peace, the extremists are given a stick to beat us with."

NYT: Washington Asks: What to Do About Israel?

Geezus ... no kiddin' ... King David actually testified to it in front of Congress ... betcha that really ****ed ol' Bibi Nut-and-Yahoo off ... he had to be about ready to blow a gasket ...

Gee - I wonder if there's anything more to this story ? :rolleyes:

And what was that "furor" thing they were talking about ?
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Really ... why ?
Occam's Razor.

And why couldn't one cause the FBI to stumble on it ?
One could. I never said one couldn't. In fact, I said it was possible. But it's also unlikely.
That's true - but we do know that Cantor knew about it back around the 25th or 26th of October - because he's said so:
Your comment about him knowing about it for "several weeks" before the election kinda threw me a little. I've always thought of "several" as being at least three, usually more than for or five, since lower numbers like one, two, and three are more easily countable. I would have characterized Oct 25th or 26th as being "several days" rather than "several weeks".

Point is you have many here screeching about how this was (or may have been) withheld by the Obama administration ... for political reasons ... in terms of influencing an election
It's a valid screech, or at least it was. It was one of my first thoughts, and deserved being brought up, but only until more information came out, which out has. At this point, anyone still screeching about it in earnest is living in a fantasy world.

The reason it was one of my first thoughts, incidentally, is because of the delay coincidentally, in three release off the news of the two Iranian fighter jets that fired on as US done in international waters a week before the election, which was clearly for political purposes in not wanting to have to answer questions about that when he'd rather talk campaign stuff our look heroic in the face of Sandy.
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So here's the relevant question with regard to the "taking out" of Gen. David Petraeus:

Cui Bono ? (who benefits ?)

Who would want to see this man gone from his post at CIA ?

And why ?

Why did Eric Cantor - the Republican House Majority Leader - sit on this ... when he knew about it several weeks before the election ?

Now ... ain't that kinda odd ...

Like it was stated from another post. It wasn't several weeks. So Cantor gets this information from the "whistleblower" and he contacts the FBI for them to follow up on it. He doesn't know if it is credible or not. He doesn't sit on it. He also doesn't hold a press conference to claim unproven information. He did the right thing and passed it along to the FBI. Nothing odd.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Like it was stated from another post. It wasn't several weeks.
Ok - 11 days then - that work better for you ?

So Cantor gets this information from the "whistleblower" and he contacts the FBI for them to follow up on it. He doesn't know if it is credible or not.
Umm ... not credible ?

The "whistleblower" was an FBI agent ? :D

He doesn't sit on it. He also doesn't hold a press conference to claim unproven information.
Geezus man ... these guys hold press conferences all the time on unproven information ...

It's part of the menu as the daily special ...

And even if he didn't hold one himself, why wasn't he pushing it through an anonymous source to the media ?

He did the right thing and passed it along to the FBI. Nothing odd.
Ahhh ... the inquisitive mind ... truly a thing to behold ...
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Ok - 11 days then - that work better for you ?


Ahh ... not credible ?

The "whistleblower" was an FBI agent ? :D


Geezus man ... these guys hold press conferences all the time on unproven information ...

It's part of the menu as the daily special ...

And even if he didn't hold one himself, why wasn't he pushing it through an anonymous source to the media ?


Ahhh ... the inquisitive mind ... truly a thing to behold ...

Just correcting your innaccurate statement that's all. So Cantor doesn't go public or leak it to the media and you see something wrong with that? Very telling that you would think that.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Oh, now here's something else out of the archives that's kinda interesting:

Cantor Draws Fire Over Pledge to Israel

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, who is expected to become the majority leader once Republicans assume control of the House in January, set off an unusual controversy when he told the Israeli leadership that Republicans "will serve as a check on the Administration" regarding Israel policy. Cantor made the pledge during an hour-long meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and two other senior Israeli officials. Cantor's office is now walking the statement back. Here's what people are saying about this.


Unprecedented The Jewish Telegraphic Agency's Ron Kampeas balks, "I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary."

Undermining Your Own President The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan writes, "Just as significant as Cantor's direct attempt to undermine his own president by siding with a foreign leader is that foreign leader's agreement to meet with him in order to advance the cause of Greater Israel. There are no parallels with this kind of direct undermining of the president on foreign policy that I can think of. Am I wrong?"


Congress Already a 'Check' on Obama's Israel Policy Think Progress's Matthew Yglesias writes, "I think the more interesting issue is that objectively speaking Cantor’s claim that the GOP takeover of congress decreases Barack Obama’s leverage over Bibi Netanyahu is mistaken. After all, it was already the case before the election that Netanyahu had a working legislative majority in the House on key issues" in the form of "strongly AIPAC-friendly members of congress" leading the Democratic caucus."


When Pelosi Did This, Cantor Called It a Felony The American Prospect's Adam Serwer notes, "In 2007, Republicans tried to turn Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria into a major controversy, charging her with granting legitimacy to Bashar al-Assad and violating the Logan Act, which makes it a felony to engage in unauthorized diplomacy with a foreign country. One of the Republicans alleging Pelosi had actually committed a crime was Rep. Eric Cantor. ... Based on Cantor's own standard, he's just committed a felony. Lucky for him, no one's ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act."

Who Does Cantor Think He Is? The Washington Post's Dana Milbank snarks, "Eric Cantor seems to be settling in well as secretary of state. Technically, his position is expected to be majority leader of the House next year, but he is already operating his own foreign policy. ... As the administration seeks ways to revive peace talks in the region, it must be reassuring to all sides that Cantor will serve as a vital check on peacemaking efforts."
It is really Cantor's foreign policy ... or Bibi's ?

Cantor Draws Fire Over Pledge to Israel
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Just correcting your innaccurate statement that's all.
No problemo ...

So Cantor doesn't go public or leak it to the media and you see something wrong with that?
No ... I don't see anything "wrong" with it ... but I do see something abnormal with it ...

Very telling that you would think that.
Yup it is indeed - it tells that I've been there ... and got the t-shirt.

If one knows the environment, it's fairly easy to see something abnormal in it ...

You gots lots of the punditry class sayin' (when they can restrain themselves from salivating and drooling over the sex aspect) something ain't right about this Petraeus deal ... it don't make sense ...
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Apparently, Petraeus was not even interviewed by the Febbies with regard to this matter until the week of October 28 ...
 
Armada Transportation

Armada Transportation

419-214-4155
Advertiser
Hiring Sprinter Owner Operators

Dear Drivers and Owner OperatorsAre you an ambitious, independent sprinter van driver with a passion for the open road? We invite you to become a part of our dynamic team as a Owner-Operator!Why Choose Us?✓ Unparalleled Independence: As an Owner-Operator, you are your own boss! Take control of your schedule, work on your terms.✓ Lucra ... Apply Today!

Top