FBI knew of Petraeus-Broadwell affair in the summer

posted at 8:01 am on November 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The timing of the resignation of David Petraeus looks more curious as the days go by.  Yesterday, Sen Dianne Feinstein said that the FBI should have notified the Congressional intelligence committees as soon as they knew that CIA Director David Petraeus was either under suspicion or under threat.  Last night, the Wall Street Journal reports that the FBI and the Department of Justice knew months ago of the affair between Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell, and that Broadwell was the source of the e-mails that had prompted their investigation in the first place:

They learned that Ms. Broadwell and Mr. Petraeus had set up private Gmail accounts to use for their communications, which included explicit details of a sexual nature, according to U.S. officials. But because Mr. Petraeus used a pseudonym, agents doing the monitoring didn’t immediately uncover that he was the one communicating with Ms. Broadwell.

By late summer, after the monitoring of Ms. Broadwell’s emails uncovered the link to Mr. Petraeus, prosecutors and agents alerted senior officials at FBI and the Justice Department, including Mr. Holder, U.S. officials say. The investigators never monitored Mr. Petraeus’s email accounts, the officials say.

In September, prosecutors and agents began a legal analysis to determine whether there were any charges that could be brought. Among the discussions: whether to interview Ms. Broadwell, who was the focus of the criminal probe, and Mr. Petraeus.

That should have prompted briefings with the chairs and vice-chairs of the Congressional intelligence committees, as Feinstein noted yesterday.  What happened after those briefings should most certainly have come to their attention, as the FBI found that Broadwell had classified documents on her computer:

Top officials signed off on the interviews, which occurred in late September and October, just before the U.S. presidential election. During Ms. Broadwell’s first interview in September, she admitted to the affair and turned over her computer, the officials said.

On her computer, investigators found classified documents, the U.S. officials said, a discovery that raised new concerns.

At Mr. Petraeus’s interview in the week before the election, he also admitted the affair and said he hadn’t provided the classified documents to Ms. Broadwell. Agents conducted a second interview with Ms. Broadwell on Nov. 2. She also said Mr. Petraeus wasn’t the source of the documents.

Even after this came to light in the probe, the FBI’s top brass and the Department of Justice never notified Congress.  Instead, Congressional leaders discovered the probe after a whistleblower in the FBI alerted a member of the House, who forwarded the tip to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor last month.  Cantor contacted the FBI, which then scrambled to make a determination of its probe.  They decided that they couldn’t bring any charges — and finally notified Petraeus’ boss, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper on Election Day.

Even then, though, it took nearly three days to notify Congress of the probe through official channels.  According to the WSJ, Clapper’s office only started calling Congressional leaders on Friday, apparently when they knew that Petraeus had decided to resign over the affair.

This answers a couple of questions, but prompts a couple of them, too.  If Petraeus hadn’t decided to resign, the FBI and DoJ could have continued to sit on this information and allowed Petraeus to continue in his role.  However, the leak from within the FBI might have prompted Petraeus to make that decision.  After all, he was interviewed twice by the FBI in September about his affair, and didn’t resign at that time.  Did the leak from the FBI intend to press Petraeus into action, or just to force the FBI and DoJ to finally brief Congressional leadership as required?  On the other hand, as Feinstein herself said yesterday on Fox News, these committees have learned this kind of information before about past DCIs without letting the secrets out.  So why resign now rather than in September, when Petraeus first discovered that his affair had been exposed to some degree in a particularly ugly way?

The timing doesn’t make a lot of sense — but then again, timing in affairs rarely do, and usually don’t require government conspiracies for their irrationality, either.  Regardless of the why, Petraeus’ resignation appears to have been the worst tactical decision in his life, if he wanted to avoid scrutiny over his affair with Broadwell, other than engaging in the affair in the first place.

Update: I’ve fixed the second excerpt.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

duty, honor, country….. or something…

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 8:04 AM

In September, prosecutors and agents began a legal analysis to determine whether there were any charges that could be brought. Among the discussions: whether to interview Ms. Broadwell, who was the focus of the criminal probe, and Mr. Petraeus.

Charges for what? Sending naughty email messages with the government’s permission?

bayam on November 12, 2012 at 8:06 AM

“Broadwell”… if one were writing a cheap novel, that would be such a perfect name.

Archivarix on November 12, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Even then, though, it took nearly three days to notify Congress of the probe through official channels.

It seams this “Three Day” response is common.

Electrongod on November 12, 2012 at 8:10 AM

The whole thing stinketh much…….

dddave on November 12, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Well, nothing like a good ol’ scandal to muddy up the headlines and distract from the large amount of voter fraud that just happened.

SQUIRREL!!!

Even Saddam limited his votes to just 100% of the votes, he didn’t need 140% of the vote.

LoganSix on November 12, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Charges for what? Sending naughty email messages with the government’s permission?

bayam on November 12, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Presumably for harassment, especially involving Jill Kelley.

Ed Morrissey on November 12, 2012 at 8:11 AM

As Benghazi-gate widens with the resignation of Petraeus and new facts brought to light with it, we’re all looking on at the playing out of what will probably prove to be one of the greatest scandals in the history of American politics.

You wouldn’t notice after reading Ed’s piece above.

Mush.

sartana on November 12, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Ed, the two quote blocks are identical.

Brat on November 12, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Blackmail.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 8:14 AM

As some “respected talking heads” have said “what’s the big deal about two people having an affair. What could be gained by blackmailing the Director of the CIA and what could be gained by keeping it a secret untill after the election?”
60 million don’t care and 57 million do so let’s move on. “We Won.”

RickinNH on November 12, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Biographer Paula Broadwell could be facing questions about whether she revealed classified information about the Libya attack that she was privy to due to her relationship with then-CIA director David Petraeus.

[snip]

Broadwell went on to explain more details from the Benghazi attacks.

“Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”

[snip]

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the Consulate and Annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA Annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location. Source

If true, there’s the real reason for the “video” excuse and the cover-up of facts.

Couldn’t let his base know right before an election that the boy king was holding Muslims prisoner.

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM

“Broadwell”… if one were writing a cheap novel, that would be such a perfect name.

Archivarix on November 12, 2012 at 8:07 AM

How about Honeypot. Ms. Paula Honeypot.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 8:18 AM

holder protecting dear leader once again….yup, the executive privilege pen coming out in 5…4….3….

shameful, and he’ll get a pass by the lsm once again…

cmsinaz on November 12, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Couldn’t let his base know right before an election that the boy king was holding Muslims prisoner.

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM

this….

cmsinaz on November 12, 2012 at 8:20 AM

LoganSix are you talking about the frauf going on in Florida?

justonevictory on November 12, 2012 at 8:20 AM

fraud?

justonevictory on November 12, 2012 at 8:21 AM

I just saw Dana Perino on FOX, and while I like her and think she’s really very intelligent, I think she lives in some kind of Pollyanna, “all politicians are as nice and good as George Bush” world. She was basing her theory of what happened on the fact that “No one throws away a 37 year marriage on a cover up”.

Uh, yeah they do, especially if the wife already knows, (Hillary) and who said he was throwing away his marriage? THere are so many stinky aspects to this story. I think Petraeus was willing to play a “small part” in the Benghazi cover up, but then realized how easily he could be the full on fall guy, and resigned. He’s probably spent the last 72 hours with a team of attorney’s. I think this is all going to boil down to the White House trying to micromanage everyone in their employ- with whatever method it took.

BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Couldn’t let his base know right before an election that the boy king was holding Muslims prisoner.

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM

I wonder if there was any waterboarding involved.

Electrongod on November 12, 2012 at 8:25 AM

I feel for his wife. If they last thru this, I’ll be amazed.

mrscullen on November 12, 2012 at 8:25 AM

I think this is all going to boil down to the White House trying to micromanage everyone in their employ- with whatever method it took.

BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 8:25 AM

yup

cmsinaz on November 12, 2012 at 8:27 AM

LoganSix are you talking about the frauf going on in Florida?

justonevictory on November 12, 2012 at 8:20 AM

There are also the 21 voting areas in Ohio that had 90-100% turnout and all voting for Obama. The Colorado county with over 100% voting. My guess is, if they look at all of the swing states, they’ll find a lot of voting that looks wrong by the numbers.

Then of course, is the prevention of military votes.

LoganSix on November 12, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Another cover up… Even Nixon didn’t have this many, including the 4 dead bodies…

Khun Joe on November 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM

If Bengazhi dies on the vine then the big question will be did they practice safe sex.

docflash on November 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM

@JenGriffinFNC

Holly Petraeus may have known about affair all along – family friends tell Fox. Why reveal it now…just days before Petraeus to testify?

Charges for what? Sending naughty email messages with the government’s permission?

bayam on November 12, 2012 at 8:06 AM

In September, prosecutors and agents began a legal analysis to determine whether there were any charges that could be brought. Among the discussions: whether to interview Ms. Broadwell, who was the focus of the criminal probe, and Mr. Petraeus.

Top officials signed off on the interviews, which occurred in late September and October, just before the U.S. presidential election. During Ms. Broadwell’s first interview in September, she admitted to the affair and turned over her computer, the officials said.

On her computer, investigators found classified documents, the U.S. officials said, a discovery that raised new concerns. Source

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM

@JenGriffinFNC

Holly Petraeus may have known about affair all along – family friends tell Fox. Why reveal it now…just days before Petraeus to testify?

I’d bet my breakfast on Mrs. Petraeus knowing about the affair. These two were not discreet- a lot of high powered couples have very interesting marriages. I wouldn’t be surprised if the new meme pushed by the administration is, “We must give the Petreaus family time to heal and work it out- like 4 years or so”

BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 8:36 AM

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA Annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Taking prisoners in Al-Qaeda’s stumping ground…
May be a reason to have a response team to get there in…
well..
before 19 hours.

Electrongod on November 12, 2012 at 8:38 AM

I just want to go back to sleep. Ugh.

Ugly on November 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM

weirder and weirder this gets.

What about Benghazi and 4 dead Americans?

GEN Petraeus needs to testify about what the heck was going on at Benghazi—before, during and after the whole thing. Also, is the fact that he was having an affair RELATED to how he so conveniently went along with the “movie” theory??? I mean, if the WH had him by the short n’ curlies then of course he’d go along with their theory, right?

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM

60 million don’t care and 57 million do so let’s move on. “We Won.” RickinNH on November 12, 2012 at 8:15 AM

And the 3 million who stayed home will scream the loudest.

Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 8:43 AM

What is the relationship between GEN Petraeus’ affair, the WH’s knowledge of it, and the support that GEN Petraeus had over the wrong-assed movie theory surrounding Benghazi???

Was he blackmailed by the White House???

Hey General, get your ass out there and say that this was a movie thing or we’re going to pay a visit to your wife AND your biotch girlfriend….

/motivations.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 8:44 AM

It’s the ol’ Washington Two-Step.

“I’d love to testify, Senator…but, I’ve got a thing.”

kingsjester on November 12, 2012 at 8:44 AM

@JenGriffinFNC

Holly Petraeus may have known about affair all along – family friends tell Fox. Why reveal it now…just days before Petraeus to testify?

I’ve read from a number of places that there have been plenty of rumors about the affair for a long time, way before last summer.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 8:44 AM

It’s time to destroy this second Obama administration before it even gets started.

Subpoenas! Petraeus… Clinton… Holder…

EVERYONE!

nitzsche on November 12, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Subpoenas! Petraeus… Clinton… Holder…

EVERYONE!

nitzsche on November 12, 2012 at 8:46 AM

oh yes. like anything resembling that is going to happen.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Subpoenas! Petraeus… Clinton… Holder…

EVERYONE!

nitzsche on November 12, 2012 at 8:46 AM

republican congress: “Umm, Mr. Holder, we here in the Republican congress have a subpoena for you, sir.…”

AG Holder: “Go to hell, you ingrates!”

republican congress: “Umm, yes sir, thank you sir, may we have another?”

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM

@CBSThisMorning

Will General Petraeus testify about Benghazi? @SharylAttkisson reports: http://t.co/42Yz6kaw

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM

So why resign now rather than in September, when Petraeus first discovered that his affair had been exposed to some degree in a particularly ugly way?

Quid pro quo, maybe?

Maybe if Petraeus successfully fended off the Benghazi debacle by further selling the movie theory then he’d be awarded the presidency of Princeton University?

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM

And the 3 million who stayed home will scream the loudest.

Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Approximately 40% of the voting age population stays home during Presidential elections, on average. So, when Obama wins with 50%, he is only winning with 30% of the voting age population. Peak participation happened in 1960.

310 million citizens and barely under 120 million cast a vote of the 240 million who could. 61 million decided we needed more free stuff and more government.

LoganSix on November 12, 2012 at 8:58 AM

There was nothing illegal in General Petraeus’ behavior. Only a substantial breech of personal responsibility, judgment and ethics.

In the wake, Petraeus has resigned which is the honorable thing to do. But he has destroyed his marriage and tarred an otherwise stellar and honorable career.

The timing of his announcement is quite obviously suspect and meant not to affect the Presidential election. On that there is not question. There is no conspiracy. The reasoning is plain and simple.

But I noticed you skipped over the part containing the disclosure policy reasoning authored by Mukasey. While one can rightly question that as part of the delaying tactics, it is critical to the conversation. Accordingly its exclusion from your post makes your conclusions specious IMHO.

Marcus Traianus on November 12, 2012 at 9:00 AM

The White House screwed up by stealing Florida.

That makes it all a little too obvious. Only a few wacky Left-Wing polling outfits had him winning that. Remember, Axelrod even concede early on election night that they would wind up losing Florida.

OUPS!

The 2012 Election was stolen, and Florida is the proof. And what’s being found in Allen West’s recount will show just how that state and the other swing-states were taken.

sartana on November 12, 2012 at 9:01 AM

The alma mater of Petraeus really needs to add a mandatory course to its curriculum and that course should be titled: “How to keep your pants zipped up”. Also, they obviously need to reiterate the meaning of “Duty, Honor, Country”.

rplat on November 12, 2012 at 9:03 AM

And people shouldn’t listen to all the rewriting of history going on in the last few days about the electorate being dejected and uninterested in this election.

The first Romney/Obama debate had over 67 million viewers, and the second only slightly less. That’s well over half the people who voted and one of the highest rated debate audiences in history.

sartana on November 12, 2012 at 9:04 AM

weirder and weirder this gets.

What about Benghazi and 4 dead Americans?

GEN Petraeus needs to testify about what the heck was going on at Benghazi—before, during and after the whole thing. Also, is the fact that he was having an affair RELATED to how he so conveniently went along with the “movie” theory??? I mean, if the WH had him by the short n’ curlies then of course he’d go along with their theory, right?

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Petraeus will lie, just as he lied about the video being the cause of the terrorist attack in Benghazi. And there won’t be a Republican on either panel with the forensic skills to prove he’s lying.

And the corrupt media will cover up for their messiah.

Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 9:04 AM

There was nothing illegal in General Petraeus’ behavior. Only a substantial breech of personal responsibility, judgment and ethics.

Marcus Traianus on November 12, 2012 at 9:00 AM

he opened himself up to be blackmailed by getting into it with Paula Honeypot. He could be blackmailed by his own superiors as well as by foreign governments. He’s the CIA Director—of all people. Every military officer and NCO undergoes training as to the security risks of getting involved in a sexual relationship when you have access to TS information–most notably when you are married! It’s a huge security risk as now he has this private life that he wants kept private yet, people know. Was he being forthright when he, the DCIA, said that it was “a video” that spurned the Benghazi attack?? Or, did he know that it was a terrorist attack but he was buying his blackmailer time by saying that it was a video???? Hard to say until he goes under oath, right?

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM

The real issue is how soon can the house develop enough evidence to begin impeachment hearings? Conviction in the senate is of course would be very unlikely but impeachment could be enough to seriously damage this administration.

rplat on November 12, 2012 at 9:10 AM

The timing of his announcement is quite obviously suspect and meant not to affect the Presidential election. On that there is not question. There is no conspiracy. The reasoning is plain and simple.

I know what you mean, but no the timing is as plain as day. Obama knew about the affair as it was going on, just as he knew the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack as it was occurring. And we now know why Petraeus claimed the attack was caused by a video. Evil will beat naive every time.

Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

FBI knew of Petraeus-Broadwell affair in the summer

Well of course they did. Does anyone really expect anyone in this administration to do what’s expected of them anymore? They’re following in the footsteps of their dear leader. There are no rules.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Somebody at the FBI was annoyed enough about what was happening – or not happening – to start blowing whistles.

From the Seattle Times:

According to The New York Times, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, said Saturday an F.B.I. employee whom his staff described as a whistle-blower told him about Mr. Petraeus’s affair and a possible security breach in late October.

“I was contacted by an F.B.I. employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain Director Mueller was aware of these serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security,” Cantor said in a statement.

Cantor talked to the person after being told by Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, that a whistle-blower wanted to speak to someone in the Congressional leadership about a national security concern. On Oct. 31, his chief of staff, Steve Stombres, called the F.B.I. to tell them about the call.

In a statement sent to The Seattle Times on Sunday, Reichert’s spokeswoman declined to say whether the congressman spoke directly to the FBI employee, or why the person contacted Reichert or Reichert’s office. Reichert serves on the tax-writing House Ways & Means Committee. But he also is co-chair of the bipartisan House Law Enforcement Caucus, which focuses on issues affecting the law-enforcement community.

Drained Brain on November 12, 2012 at 9:12 AM

The real issue is how soon can the house develop enough evidence to begin impeachment hearings? Conviction in the senate is of course would be very unlikely but impeachment could be enough to seriously damage this administration.

rplat on November 12, 2012 at 9:10 AM

oh great! 1998 redux. where exactly would that get us and, in this instance, what would it be based on? I mean, all that Obama has to say is that it was Petraeus, not obama, who stained that girl’s dress and he’d be scot free and rightfully so.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:13 AM

This corrupt WH keeps pulling this same elementary crap .
We can massage it six ways to Sunday an it always comes
out the same .
They follow ” Rules for Radicales ” over and over and over .
The wimps in the House and Senate have the play book and
yet they can’t figure out the game .
You would think that they might have a clue by now how not to
fall into the squirrel trap of chaos .
Get your act together House ! Hit them hard and fast for once !
Keep this on the front page !

Lucano on November 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Obama knew about the affair as it was going on…
Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

K.T. McFarland says there is no way the prez didn’t know about the affair when Petraeus was being vetted for the job, with lie detector tests and the works. Obama knew about it and decided to “overlook” it.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM

this is politically engineered all of this…
–former CIA guy on FnF

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM

And the 3 million who stayed home will scream the loudest.
Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Approximately 40% of the voting age population stays home during Presidential elections, on average. So, when Obama wins with 50%, he is only winning with 30% of the voting age population. Peak participation happened in 1960.

310 million citizens and barely under 120 million cast a vote of the 240 million who could. 61 million decided we needed more free stuff and more government.

LoganSix on November 12, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Useful information, but I was referring to those who don’t understand basic math: ABR=0.

Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM

What better tidbit of information for the WH to have about one of their high ranking peeps, particularly one who might have aspired to be president, like GEN Petraeus. That’s juicy stuff right there, tailor made to crush an opponent with.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM

The real issue is how soon can the house develop enough evidence to begin impeachment hearings? Conviction in the senate is of course would be very unlikely but impeachment could be enough to seriously damage this administration.

rplat on November 12, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Impeachment is something they should only do when it’s clear they’ve caught Obama in a lie like they did with Clinton back in 1998. Obviously it’ll never go anywhere in the Senate(unless it’s a really really BIG lie), but the key is to have enough evidence that it’s the Senate Democrats who look like the partisan hacks and not the House Republicans.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM

oh great! 1998 redux. where exactly would that get us and, in this instance, what would it be based on? I mean, all that Obama has to say is that it was Petraeus, not obama, who stained that girl’s dress and he’d be scot free and rightfully so.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:13 AM

As it was with Watergate it’s not the alleged crime finishes the perpetrators, it’s the coverup. The inability of Petraeus to keep his fly zipped is fundamentally unimportant. I’m sure before this is over there will be a rather long list of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to draw upon.

rplat on November 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM

rplat on November 12, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Impeachment is something they should only do when it’s clear they’ve caught Obama in a lie like they did with Clinton back in 1998. Obviously it’ll never go anywhere in the Senate(unless it’s a really really BIG lie), but the key is to have enough evidence that it’s the Senate Democrats who look like the partisan hacks and not the House Republicans.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Obama has already been caught in a lie about Benghazi, a few of them actually. It was “about a youtube video” then it was “i said ‘acts of terror’ in the Rose Garden” as if he meant it all along. Now, the zone is flooded with the debris of this generals’ career, his hot galfriend, Benghazi, and there are 4 dead Americans who cannot testify. What on earth can we make from this????

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:24 AM

We would have gotten so much more information faster if only Gen. Petraeus had said he was a Republican with political aspirations.

Cindy Munford on November 12, 2012 at 9:25 AM

this is just made to order. Somewhere, Billy Jeff is smirking and admiring the general’s taste.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:25 AM

It’s always the coverup. If Patraeus compromised his position and secrets are being leaked as has been reported, he should be court martialed, right?

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 9:27 AM

bayam on November 12, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Hmmmm Classified documents on Broadwell’s computer?

katablog.com on November 12, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Oh, who cares about a stolen election or Benghazi (you’ve got to be kidding me on both. The election was stolen and there were AQ prisoners at the embassy? Really, with skeleton security? This gets better by the day)

Who cares? Broadwell is HOT and the Jill woman hotter. The General is a stud./

I’m not sure I can read anymore today. This is sick. Throw in the dead children and I’d say that I never would’ve believed this house of cards. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

ORconservative on November 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Hmmmm Classified documents on Broadwell’s computer?

katablog.com on November 12, 2012 at 9:30 AM

read as: RED HERRING or RED SQUIRREL of course….

there are 4x DEAD Americans from Benghazi and all of the rest of this is politically manufactured smokescreen to make you forget that 4 Americans were left to die in Benghazi while the WH watched.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Is anyone interested in the classified documents Ms. Broadwell had on her computer that both say Petraeus didn’t give her?

Cindy Munford on November 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Then there is the little speech at the old alma mater.

Cindy Munford on November 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Obama has already been caught in a lie about Benghazi, a few of them actually. It was “about a youtube video” then it was “i said ‘acts of terror’ in the Rose Garden” as if he meant it all along. Now, the zone is flooded with the debris of this generals’ career, his hot galfriend, Benghazi, and there are 4 dead Americans who cannot testify. What on earth can we make from this????

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:24 AM

So how does Congress go after a sitting president? I am asking a serious question, not a rhetorical one. The House needs to be relentless is investigating. Can Congress call a president in to testify under oath, or does someone have to turn on him? Hypothetically, if Petraeus testifies that he knows for a fact that Obama made the call to stand down, or that Obama told him to say the attack on our Consulate was because of a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack, would that be enough to impeach?

texgal on November 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM

drudge now has this headlined….wonderful.

he should have a picture of 4 flag draped coffins next to it…for context.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Hypothetically, if Petraeus testifies that he knows for a fact that Obama made the call to stand down, or that Obama told him to say the attack on our Consulate was because of a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack, would that be enough to impeach?

texgal on November 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM

not sure. Jesse Jackson the Junior (bless his heart) can get reelected while in rehab and the truth apparently doesn’t matter to the majority of the voting electorate.

ted c on November 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Even then, though, it took nearly three days to notify Congress of the probe through official channels. According to the WSJ, Clapper’s office only started calling Congressional leaders on Friday, when they knew “for sure” that O’bamna had been re-elected.

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on November 12, 2012 at 9:45 AM

If this too, like everything else apparently, is just a big conspiracy to cover up for Benghazi, and this was Barack Obama’s blackmail ammo to get Patraeus to go along and back the official story, the shots been fired now, why wouldn’t the General just come out and come clean?

I just think his relationship with this woman has been an open secret for years, it got pulled into the administrations network to investigate intelligence leaks(like every administration does), it didn’t turn up much, but the story couldn’t be contained much longer.

I think Patraeus has been an honorable General worthy of trust in his knowledge, integrity, and ability to get done what needs to get done to when it comes to the defense of America. I don’t think the fact that he had a girlfriend affects that at all in reality. Listening to his staff around him when he was in Afghanistan even, he apparently made little effort to truly hide their relationship.

No that it’s out, and he’s out, and people are asking questions. If there was something to be said, he was blackmailed to cover up for Benghazi or whatever “hopeful to damage the President” answer you all are starving to hear, I imagine he’d come out and say it.

Genuine on November 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM

We have two stories moving on dual tracks. The Obama National Security Teams reaction, or should I say NON reaction to events in Benghazi, up too and including President Obama’s ability to not make a decision. And Director CIA Petraeus telling non truths to both chairman of the intelligence committees. Question is, what did he tell to Broadwell. The timing is important. Both stories are about to merge ugly. What a awful mess.

flackcatcher on November 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Timing is everything, isn’t it? No one with a brain would believe that it’s just a coincidence that all this comes to light just DAYS before Patreaus was scheduled to testify. Fortunately for the Obama administration and as last Tuesday night’s election results can attest, we’ve formally begun the next stage of our country’s evolution… the Idiocracy. There aren’t enough intelligent people left to care.

Murf76 on November 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

FBI knew of Petraeus-Broadwell affair in the summer
Well of course they did. Does anyone really expect anyone in this administration to do what’s expected of them anymore? They’re following in the footsteps of their dear leader. There are no rules.

scalleywag on November 12, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Guess who’s on the hot seat here…..again!

The last time I checked, the FBI is under the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Justice, led by none other than “the honorable” Eric Holder, (United States Attorney General). The question must be asked: Why did Mr. Holder withhold/refuse to disclose to the Senate intelligence committee the information that there was a breech in National Security when it was discovered that classified documents were found in her emails?

Top officials signed off on the interviews, which occurred in late September and October, just before the U.S. presidential election. During Ms. Broadwell’s first interview in September, she admitted to the affair and turned over her computer, the officials said.

On her computer, investigators found classified documents, the U.S. officials said, a discovery that raised new concerns.

Was Mr. Holder on an extended vacation during the summer when he made the decision to with-hold/cover-up this information? Should some one else in Obama’s administration finally be updating his resume?

Rovin on November 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Even after this came to light in the probe, the FBI’s top brass and the Department of Justice never notified Congress.

Seems DOJ believes that it’s a separate branch of government.

Just look at Fast and Furious.

GarandFan on November 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I just saw Dana Perino on FOX, and while I like her and think she’s really very intelligent, I think she lives in some kind of Pollyanna, “all politicians are as nice and good as George Bush” world. She was basing her theory of what happened on the fact that “No one throws away a 37 year marriage on a cover up”.

Uh, yeah they do, especially if the wife already knows, (Hillary) and who said he was throwing away his marriage? THere are so many stinky aspects to this story. I think Petraeus was willing to play a “small part” in the Benghazi cover up, but then realized how easily he could be the full on fall guy, and resigned. He’s probably spent the last 72 hours with a team of attorney’s. I think this is all going to boil down to the White House trying to micromanage everyone in their employ- with whatever method it took.

BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 8:25 AM

The filthy cabal in the White House are Chicago Machine/Outfit. No matter how much you trust your people, if you find out something like this you keep it in your back pocket just in case you need it some day. Even if your subordinate is innocent otherwise, you might need something to force them into being a fall guy.

Most wonderful side-effect: everyone in little Bammie’s fetid administration will wonder, “is the FBI monitoring me too”?

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Hypothetically, if Petraeus testifies that he knows for a fact that Obama made the call to stand down, or that Obama told him to say the attack on our Consulate was because of a video when they knew it was a terrorist attack, would that be enough to impeach?

texgal on November 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM

We are not going to impeach the first black president. Just forget entirely that an impeachment process exists.

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 10:23 AM

…Another cover up… Even Nixon didn’t have this many, including the 4 dead bodies…

Khun Joe on November 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Lots more than that, if you consider Fast & Furious. Except that F&F got swept under the rug a long time ago, just like Benghazi will soon. Sad.

KS Rex on November 12, 2012 at 10:26 AM

… impeachment could be enough to seriously damage this administration.

rplat on November 12, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Yep, that’s what happened to Clinton’s administration — it is viewed as an utter failure and Bill was left a broken, anonymous, nobody. /sarc
Impeachment, if it were to ever happen, would be shot down by the MSM as racism, pure & simple.

KS Rex on November 12, 2012 at 10:30 AM

This smells at many levels, from my blog.

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2012/11/12/update-the-other-woman-is-a-family-friend-of-wife-petraeus-and-fbi-may-have-been-played-calling-bullshit-and-throwing-a-yellow-flag/

Either this is a case of some very bright people being incredibly stupid (the Robin Williams rule) or Broadwell is crazy (The Richardson rule) or something else is afoot. …

Okay, obvious question here. When was the last time you were able to call the FBI about harassing emails? Was it because it named the head of the CIA directly and because you actually were a friend of the family that qualifies? Why not call the general, the head of the CIA , and tell him about it? (Y’know the CIA, the place with all the computers and analysts and such!) Did they? Did he blow them off? He could have emailed or called Broadwell and said “Knock it off you crazy b….”

….But we hear Petraeus was chasing Broadwell, who was not responding (??), with emails? That’s is odd. General chases woman who had chased him but broke it off, but sends emails to friend of family and a social planner and helper at McDill, telling her to stay way “from her man”??

Okay, add a black housekeeper with a half white child belonging to the general and we’d be witnessing a Southern antebellum melodrama.

Yet the FBI gets involved and in one of those classic “leaps of logic” famous in the Obama administration, the FBI is suddenly looking at a breach of classified information? When? When did an email investigation turn into a classified breach? When they interviewed her and she admitted to the affair? When she turned over her laptop? Sure, they get there, but there is A LOT of ground covered.

Listen, I was in law enforcement at a local level, and trust me no FBI agent is going to continue forward headed dead at the CIA director without going “Uh, guys, this could get really ugly and I’m not willing to be the one crushed if it goes wrong. Let’s check with our bosses first.” I’m telling you. One call to DOJ and the case is squashed, Broadwell is quietly admonished and warned, Petraeus is saved and everybody is happy. It is obvious Broadwell knew more than most, listen to this video (h/t Gateway Pundit)

So why didn’t it happen that way? Ethics got the better of the DOJ? Okay, you can stop laughing and spitting up your coffee, I was just kidding. …

We’ll never know. This administration is simply Chicago at a national level and even the career people in the federal system aren’t willing to buck it.

Too bad.

archer52 on November 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Yesterday, Sen Dianne Feinstein said that the FBI should have notified the Congressional intelligence committees as soon as they knew that CIA Director David Petraeus was either under suspicion or under threat.

Why would the FBI do what it should do when they know — with certainty, given historical event after event in any Democrat administration (since the LSM is effectively their PR branch) — that there is NEVER any penalty (in fact, often reward) for getting caught putting their political allegiance over their country and sworn duty?

/rhetorical question obviously

ShainS on November 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Classified docs on her computer: Does Ms. Broadwell have a security clearance and authorization to have these classified docs on a personal computer? If so, what level? (TS or higher?) Why is this not a FBI concern?

As far as her Univ of Denver speech, I seem to recall that the prisoners were given to the Libyan officials (17th Militia?) The YT video clearly shows one prisoner with his hands tied behind his back before transport in the SUV. I would be curious as to their nationalities.

I believe Ms Broadwell was speaking in the open attempting to sell her new book and the Administration had to stop this “info” getting out before the election.

The CIA “mistress” angle is a side show to coverup the (1) CIA secret Annex prison or (2) the misappropriation of funds being used by the Administration to hide their gun running activities from Libya through Turkey and on to Syria.

luckybogey on November 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Marcus Traianus on November 12, 2012 at 9:00 AM

The disclosure Policy (NDA) reasoning is spurious. Congress can hold a secured meeting and he can answer w/o violating the NDA.

chemman on November 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Never mind the FBI. DoJ knew for MONTHS and kept quiet? Can you say “black mail”? Sounds like now we know the reason Betrayus kept the party line of “video led to the attack” a few days after 9/11, on TV.

And Feinstein wants to know why FBI kept quiet? DoJ knew and this means that Hussein knew. Let’s talk to Holder first and ask him why he kept quiet or will we be met with the usual “cleaning lady picked up the phone that day and never thought of alerting anyone else…” BS, so normal for DoJ the past 4 years.

Now that this came up, I would really like to know what Hussein had on Roberts with that late cave in on ObamaCare. This was our first reaction when the ObamaCare decision was announced with that convoluted and made up “thought process” by Roberts, no other explanation made sense.

Something ain’t right here on more than one level.

riddick on November 12, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Obama knew about the affair as it was going on…
Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

K.T. McFarland says there is no way the prez didn’t know about the affair when Petraeus was being vetted for the job, with lie detector tests and the works. Obama knew about it and decided to “overlook” it.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM

No, no and again no. Obama filed it away for future use. Martha MacCallum, bless her heart, asked Michael Hayden why an affair could not be kept private and Hayden, bless his heart, said it was a good question.

Evil beats naive every time.

Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Caught with their pants down.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

seven on November 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

It is extremely likely, as the article mentions, that past directors have also had similar indiscretions in their backgrounds.

I wonder if it was a combination of Broadwell’s talk at the University of Denver and the fact that knowledge of the affair had now leaked beyond the intelligence community. Broadwell seems to have said things about Benghazi that would have had to come from within the intelligence community generally and likely CIA internally and spoke about what the Director knew but couldn’t talk about.

Those two pieces of information … Broadwell talking about things that could potentially have come from Patraeus and the fact that word of the affair had leaked outside of intelligence / law enforcement circles was probably what precipitated it.

crosspatch on November 12, 2012 at 12:08 PM

More questions:

If P4 offered his personal computer to the FBI showing his gmail account, why not delete the emails between him and Broadwell or were these emails only on her computer?

How do we know that Ms Broadwell actually sent the emails to Jill Kelly? Could the gmail email account being shared between P4 and Broadwell was hacked?

Who in the DOJ/FBI authorized the warrant to intercept this gmail account? Who else in the Administration knew of this authorization?

luckybogey on November 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM

So I guess if Patraeus was the GOP nominee for POTUS he would’ve been taken down by this affair

LurkerDood on November 12, 2012 at 12:34 PM

If she’s exposing a bigger scandal than sex, I think he’s right.

the_nile on November 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

They might be able to keep Petraeus quiet by threatening to disclose some kinky emails and by arranging his golden parachute at Princeton. But how would they keep Ms. Honeypot quiet?

Vince Foster comes to mind. Nawww, they’d never do that.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Is it just a coincidence that everything associated with President Crapweasel turns to… well… crap?

Ventura Capitalist on November 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM