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.

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?

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.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

… 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.

…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.

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.

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”?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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