King on Petraeus scandal: This is a “crisis of major proportions”

posted at 12:11 pm on November 12, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

On MSNBC this morning, Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and member of the Intelligence Committee, discussed the sketchy timeline of the events leading up to David Petraeus’ resignation as head of the CIA and the questions that Congress is still looking to get answered.

Joe Scarborough for one is skeptical about the proffered narrative, to say the least.

KING: I don’t know how this rises to the level of an FBI investigation. … Once the FBI realized that it was investigating the director of the CIA or the CIA director had come within its focus or its scope, I believe at that time they had an absolute obligation to tell the president. Not to protect David Petraeus, but to protect the president. … The fact is he is a key part of the president’s foreign policy team, maybe more than any other CIA director in recent times. … And to have someone out there in such a sensitive position who the FBI thought perhaps could have been compromised or was under the scope of an FBI investigation who may or may not have been having an affair at the time, that to me had to have been brought to the president or certainly to the National Security Council. If not, the FBI was derelict in its duty.

SCARBOROUGH: Peter, it is mind-blowing to think that the director of the FBI knew about this from the summer, has almost daily contacts with the president of the United States, knows that the man who’s entrusted to, in effect, run the War on Terror, may be compromised? And he doesn’t say anything to the president of the United States for months? Somebody needs to be fired here. This is ridiculous.

KING: This is a crisis, I believe, of major proportions. … I’m not into conspiracy theories, but I certainly have questions. For instance, my first concern is with the FBI: Why they went ahead with the investigation and why they didn’t tell somebody above. If they did tell somebody above, it would have been Eric Holder. And in that case, Holder should have gone to the president.

As Ed already pointed out this morning, the timing of this latest debacle just gets curioser and curioser. Not only will Congress be investigating the FBI’s investigation of the former CIA director, but they’re not ruling out calling Petraeus to testify during the upcoming Benghazi hearings regardless of his resignation.

Operation Fast & Furious was reason enough to be up in arms over the way the president seems to be running his administration, but then came Benghazi and now this? It’s hard not to wonder what the heck is going on over there. I think I’m with Joe Scarborough on this one: “The FBI, the attorney general, everybody better get their story straight fast, because this doesn’t add up.”


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

If Petraeus even opens his mouth he’s in a lot of danger of falling into a perjury trap, if he hasn’t already. And do they still prosecute for adultery in the military?

Paul-Cincy on November 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM

That was about Bob “I so cheap and horny” Menendez.

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM

And that one sure didn’t last very long…as sex scandals go.

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Something stinks, but I have yet to see any connection to Obama himself so far?

A Axe on November 12, 2012 at 7:10 PM

He’s the CIC.

The buck stops with him.

(No pun intended. Economics-wise.)

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) confirmed Sunday he first learned of the affair several months ago from a friend who knows Kelley. Reichert told House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who put Kelley in touch with FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Cantor’s staff didn’t immediately tell the House Intelligence Committee or other House leaders because they didn’t know whether the information was credible, Fox News reported.

I would have been careful, too, had I been Cantor. He could have been set up with disinformation and charged with slander. Look at how he learned of the Kelley situation via second- and third-hand hearsay. Instead of leaking the hearsay, Cantor responsibly puts Kelley in touch with the FBI director. And then the matter is dropped? Why? Did Mueller pass along the information to the Director of National Intelligence? Who knows? Were threats literally and credibly made to Kelley? Apparently not.

onlineanalyst on November 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Apparently you can do anything with the ‘press’ on your side…

… Who knew?

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 12, 2012 at 7:49 PM

If Petraeus even opens his mouth he’s in a lot of danger of falling into a perjury trap, if he hasn’t already. And do they still prosecute for adultery in the military?

Paul-Cincy on November 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM

They do. Kind of funny though now that we seem to condone an anything goes lifestyle.

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Good lord, she had Top Secret clearance

faraway on November 12, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Clearance or not…if she had classified information on her personal computer, she was in violation of standing security regs. For that, she could – at the least – lose whatever clearance she has.
And I don’t believe that she was involved with any organization that would have issued her an encrypted laptop.

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Apparently you can do anything with the ‘press’ on your side Pravda’s pimps in your pocket…

… Who knew?

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 12, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Accuracy In Media.

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Apparently you can do anything with the ‘press’ on your side Pravda’s pimps in your pocket…

… Who knew?

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 12, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Accuracy In Media.

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Wouldn’t you like to meet one of the big ones, face to face? Someone like Rather or Brokaw. Or one of the new generation propagandists like O’Brien or Cooper and ask, how do you do it? How do you so overtly distort the news for your obvious bias and still sleep at night? Do you have no objectivity? Do you not care that the other side, even though you might disagrees with politics, has a right to be heard?

Wouldn’t you love to just meet one of them?

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 8:10 PM

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Wouldn’t you like to meet one of the big ones, face to face? Someone like Rather or Brokaw….and ask… Do you not care that the other side, even though you might disagrees with politics, has a right to be heard?

Wouldn’t you love to just meet one of them?

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I’ve only done small town journalism and it was mainly “boosterism” more than hard news. (Gladhanding for local businesses, etc, to keep things ‘comfortable’ for the paper, and ad revenue flowing.)

This seems like the same noxious trend on a national scale, boosting Obama, their own source of “revenue” (-sinecures, grants, party invitations, job references, stock tips, story leads, appointments, university positions, book deals, promotions, ad nauseam.)

profitsbeard on November 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Do you have no objectivity? Do you not care that the other side, even though you might disagrees with politics, has a right to be heard?

Wouldn’t you love to just meet one of them?

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Demonizing those who hold different opinions, misinforming the public, refusing to report news that doesn’t suit their purposes is bad enough.

What makes it worse is that they then laugh at the public for being ill-informed and ignorant. INOW, they achieve their objective (in many cases) and then treat their dupes with contempt.

They’re despicable low-lifes.

Cody1991 on November 12, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Schadenfreude on November 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Schad, was it you that posted somewhere today that Jill Kelley had ties with Hillary and Huma?

I didn’t find much about that on Google, but I’d really like to know more, if you have any links handy.

Jill Kelley complains to the FBI and the FBI jumps through hoops to investigate? If you or I complained about ugly emails, would the FBI jump on it? Hardly.

If Clintons are behind Jill Kelley’s complaint, it could change everything.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 8:23 PM

The WSJ has an article that says that the FBI agent who pushed the Jill Kelley complaints to his superiors had sent shirtless photos to our gal Jill, too. The lad was relieved of follow-through on the case.

onlineanalyst on November 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

onlineanalyst on November 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM

We need to know why the Jill Kelley complaint over a mundane matter triggered an extraordinary FBI investigation.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Are we even sure Paula Broadwell sent those E-mails?

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Are we even sure Paula Broadwell sent those E-mails?

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Good question.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Broadwell’s father said the sex scandal is a smokescreen for something bigger. Trying to figger what that might be.

Sure, a dad is expected to believe in his children. But there’s a strong enough smell of fish around this entire matter to make one wonder.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 9:09 PM

We need to know why the Jill Kelley complaint over a mundane matter triggered an extraordinary FBI investigation.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

It didn’t. The FBI began reading his email when he became a possible VP pick for Governor Romney. Would you expect any better from the Chicago Machine?

They came up with the Kelley complaint as a convenient excuse. The timeline will tell, if they haven’t been able to erase it completely.

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Broadwell’s father said the sex scandal is a smokescreen for something bigger. Trying to figger what that might be.

Sure, a dad is expected to believe in his children. But there’s a strong enough smell of fish around this entire matter to make one wonder.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I am starting to think SHE may be the one who is getting set up. She may have let something slip in Denver that wasn’t supposed to be out there.

There is just too much here that conflicts with any coherent whole. Some of this stuff looks to be misinformation and we don’t yet know who is doing what to whom.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 9:12 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578115410189757452.html
That ^ is the story on the FBI agent, a friend of Jill Kelley, who was relieved of his duty.

I wondered about who sent those Broadwell emails to Kelley, too,(although they are generic and inane) and also how classified information got onto Broadwell’s personal computer. Was there some double-crossing or psy-ops going on here.

When the FBI questioned both Petraeus and Broadwell about their relationship as revealed by their emails to each other, both admitted to the affair and actually provided more information than the investigators knew, according to The earlier-linked Daily Beast story. There was apparently nothing indicative of a security breach that emerged from that investigation.

Something was going on in Benghazi, which either the Obysmal administration or/and the CIA wanted to keep under the wraps. When the attack took place, there was a lot of CYA going on. Either a plan went awry or Stevens was set up to take a fall.

Is Broadwell covering for Petraeus to keep him from taking a fall? Was she privy to other classified material that she slipped out inadvertently? Too much of this mystery goes back to what happened in Benghazi prior to, during, and after the attack on the consulate.

onlineanalyst on November 12, 2012 at 9:22 PM

It didn’t. The FBI began reading his email when he became a possible VP pick for Governor Romney. …

They came up with the Kelley complaint as a convenient excuse….

slickwillie2001 on November 12, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Rings true to me.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I am starting to think SHE may be the one who is getting set up. She may have let something slip in Denver that wasn’t supposed to be out there.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 9:12 PM

I agree completely. I suspect she knows stuff they don’t want exposed, and they’re out to discredit her. Same for Petraeus. Discredit him before he goes public.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Something was going on in Benghazi, which either the Obysmal administration or/and the CIA wanted to keep under the wraps. When the attack took place, there was a lot of CYA going on. Either a plan went awry or Stevens was set up to take a fall.

onlineanalyst on November 12, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Yup, something was going on in Benghazi that the WH doesn’t want exposed, almost at any cost. That’s at the root of this entire cover-up.

petefrt on November 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM

That was about Bob “I so cheap and horny” Menendez.

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM

And that one sure didn’t last very long…as sex scandals go.

Solaratov on November 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Well, he was a Democrat, so yeah….

tom on November 13, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3