Shirtless FBI agent in Petraeus case getting a bad rap?

posted at 7:57 pm on November 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

If you believed the earlier media reports about him, he’s either (a) lovesick for Kelley to the point where he tried to seduce her with barechested pics or (b) obsessed with the idea of a cover-up here because of his, ahem, “worldview.” Either way, he’s letting personal/political judgments interfere with his professional duties.

Third possibility: Maybe he’s an agent with a good track record who really did suspect that there’s something going on that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. Time for his side of the story:

Two former law enforcement colleagues said Mr. Humphries was a solid agent with experience in counterterrorism, conservative political views and a reputation for aggressiveness.

“Fred is a passionate kind of guy,” said one former colleague. “He’s kind of an obsessive type. If he locked his teeth onto something, he’d be a bulldog.”

He helped catch the Millennium Bomber in just his third year with the Bureau. As for the shirtless pics:

“That picture was sent years before Ms. Kelley contacted him about this, and it was sent as part of a larger context of what I would call social relations in which the families would exchange numerous photos of each other,” Mr. Berger said.

The photo was sent as a “joke” and was of Mr. Humphries “posing with a couple of dummies.” Mr. Berger said the picture was not sexual in nature.

That would solve the mystery of why Kelley reached out to him for help with the weird e-mails she was receiving. It never made sense that she’d do that if she was creeped out by sexual photos he’d sent. It makes lots of sense if she wasn’t creeped out and had laughed them off. As for his worries about a cover-up, I’m seeing a debate play out online among people familiar with FBI protocol. The pro-White House side argues that it’s inappropriate to involve elected officials like the president in an ongoing investigation lest political considerations interfere with the case. Time magazine reached out, though, to Bush AG Michael Mukasey, who wrote a memo while in office laying down guidelines about avoiding political interference — and he says the memo doesn’t bar informing the White House of what’s going on in cases like this. On the contrary:

Unfortunately for the Obama team, there are huge holes in their arguments. For starters, Mukasey himself says there is no prohibition on Justice-to-White House communication in criminal investigations. “The memo makes it quite clear that not only is that not the case, it is explicitly not the case,” Mukasey told TIME Tuesday evening. Says Mukasey: “The point is not that the White House can never be apprised of a pending criminal investigation; the point is that the White House should not reach out and influence a pending criminal investigation.”

More to the point, Mukasey’s memo specifically instructs “all components of the Justice Department” that “it is critically important to have frequent and expeditious communications relating to national security matters, including counter-terrorism and counter-espionage issues.” If anything, the Mukasey memo orders Justice Department officials–including prosecutors and the FBI–to communicate with relevant political authorities when they make a discovery like they did in the Petraeus case.

The Mukasey memo isn’t binding on the current Attorney General, or the Justice Department. But it is not the only precedent that suggests the Administration handled the Petraeus affair badly.

Could be that Humphries did overstep his bounds by interfering in a case to which he wasn’t assigned and then telling Eric Cantor about it, but whether that was his “worldview” at play or a well founded suspicion that people who needed to know about this weren’t being told is unclear. Possibly relevant: It appears he knew right away that this case was potentially bigger than just a routine cyber-harassment case. One of the e-mails that Kelley showed him initially was a forwarded message from … Gen. John Allen, who’d been contacted by someone calling themselves “kellypatrol” to warn him about Jill Kelley. (That, of course, turned out to be Broadwell.) NBC:

As reported previously by NBC News, Kelley took the emails – including at least one from Allen – to the FBI agent she knew because they made reference to meetings she had planned with both Allen and Petraeus, the source said. Kelley wondered why an anonymous e-mailer would know that kind of detail and became concerned that someone was cyberstalking her or hacking into her e-mails, the person said.

So Humphries knew right off the bat that not only was Allen somehow involved in this but whoever was harassing Kelley had non-public info about both his and Petraeus’s whereabouts. Maybe that’s why he followed up on the case so doggedly, not because he was infatuated with Kelley. And maybe he had reason to be suspicious: According to Reuters, the feds have found much more classified information on Broadwell’s computer than they expected to. Could be that she had access to it rightfully, per her security clearance, and simply didn’t store it securely. We’ll see; that’s what the raid on her home two days ago was designed to find out.

Exit question: How open a secret was Petraeus’s affair with Broadwell? The Journal reports today that Kelley “developed misgivings after friends in her Tampa social circle urged her to drop the matter, saying the probe would only cause bigger problems…” That makes me think maybe her “social circle” guessed who was sending the e-mails because they knew what was going on with Broadwell and Petraeus. Oh, and one other question: How confident are you that Petraeus’s allies are telling the truth about his affair ending four months ago? Because, per this report from Fox News, that seems hard to square with Broadwell’s demeanor — and publishing aspirations — just last month.


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

Shirtless photo.

Context is everything.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM

…something shiny!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Broadwell has man-hands, maybe she is actually a he and GP is gay and this is homosexual cover-up situation.

No more unreasonable than anything else being offered.

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Let’s see: For Broadwell, no criminal charges from the catty emails which is good. FBI raid on her house, which is bad. Also the reputation that she is boinking her subjects which is bad. Husband is a pu$$y.

For Kelley, exposure as a social climber with the intelligence of Kim Kardashian, fake cancer charity, and out of control spending. Thinks she is a general, too (consulate). Husband is also a pu$$y.

Blake on November 14, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Because, per this report from Fox News, that seems hard to square with Broadwell’s demeanor — and publishing aspirations — just last month.

He was invited to her 40th birthday party in Wash. DC, which was promptly cancelled last Friday.

Friday, Nov. 9 – Obama accepts Petraeus’ resignation. News of the resignation breaks before Congress is briefed. Broadwell’s husband emails guests to cancel her 40th birthday party, scheduled for that weekend. By the evening, Broadwell has been publicly identified.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Shirtless photo.

Context is everything.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM

You are hereby advised that posting unauthorized photos of me is strictly prohibited. I have referred your post to my attorneys who have been authorized to take all appropriate legal action.

TXUS on November 14, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Great article

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 8:09 PM

You are hereby advised that posting unauthorized photos of me is strictly prohibited. I have referred your post to my attorneys who have been authorized to take all appropriate legal action.

TXUS on November 14, 2012 at 8:08 PM

My apologies, and kudos to your wife and girlfriends.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM

You are hereby advised that posting unauthorized photos of me is strictly prohibited. I have referred your post to my attorneys who have been authorized to take all appropriate legal action.

TXUS on November 14, 2012 at 8:08 PM

:)

Axe on November 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM

___________ in Petraeus case getting a bad rap?

Many names could go in this blank.

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Too much Red Bull.

And easy internet access.

Presto: shirtless photos sent to object of investigation.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Do we actually know if Broadwell sent the E-mails in question? She has acknowledged the affair as has Petraeus, but did she in fact send the E-mails from Petraeus’ account?

Why would she use his account to send them?

Why did these not terribly scary E-mails warrant an FBI investigation?

Why would Jill Kelley ask the FBI to look at her E-mails when she had a lot to hide as well? Unless she wanted them found?

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Why didn’t these 2 broads settle their thing over a married man , on a Jerry Springer show, like all trashy people do ?
Why did the FBi get involved ?

burrata on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

1. Where are the 2 Benghazi prisoners?

2. Were they swapped for Stevens?

3. Who were the Benghazi prisoners?

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Broadwell has man-hands, maybe she is actually a he and GP is gay and this is homosexual cover-up situation.

No more unreasonable than anything else being offered.

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Hahaha, I admit it, I actually considered that myself a while ago.

Because Broadwell DOES have man hands, also man shoulders, man hips and overall man stature (she looks to be a tad taller than Petraeus) (and she also looks “bigger” than he does including all the man-aspects).

It’s not all exercise that makes for that result, just sayin’.

Hahaha, Broadwell’s got some sort of chromosomonal or hormonal conflicts, for sure. Though, yes, she’s an attractive person, I’m just not sure she’s an attractive “lady”…ha.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Why didn’t these 2 broads settle their thing over a married man , on a Jerry Springer show, like all trashy people do ?
Why did the FBi get involved ?

burrata on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

lol, this tickled my funny bone but it is clear to me that both women felt they were more important than they really are.

CoffeeLover on November 14, 2012 at 8:21 PM

BOR is slandering Jill Kelley now.

Kelley is an official Honorary Consul.

Honorary consuls are unique in that they are officials of both the sending state and the host state. Honorary consuls in the U.S. are confirmed by the State Department and issued a State Department Consular ID. They are provided many of the immunities of standard consular position. Most honorary consuls are appointed by the president of their sending state

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Do we actually know if Broadwell sent the E-mails in question? She has acknowledged the affair as has Petraeus, but did she in fact send the E-mails from Petraeus’ account?

Why would she use his account to send them?

Why did these not terribly scary E-mails warrant an FBI investigation?

Why would Jill Kelley ask the FBI to look at her E-mails when she had a lot to hide as well? Unless she wanted them found?

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

It can be identified as where the emails originated by the IPAs involved in the email transmissions. Obviously, someone has already established (or so we’re told) that the emails “originated with Broadwell” or “were sent by Broadwell” because they looked through the email headers and correlated the origination IPA of each with where Broadwell was accessing the internet, or to her MAC address more specifically.

O.K., back to the comedy…

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Now Jennifer Griffin is slandering the ‘shirtless photo’ guy

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Because, per this report from Fox News, that seems hard to square with Broadwell’s demeanor — and publishing aspirations — just last month.

The idea that it started after military service is just as hard to square IMHO.

Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM

She just said the FBI guy sent the ‘shirtless photos’ after the investigation began

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Do we actually know if Broadwell sent the E-mails in question? She has acknowledged the affair as has Petraeus, but did she in fact send the E-mails from Petraeus’ account?

Why would she use his account to send them?

Why did these not terribly scary E-mails warrant an FBI investigation?

Why would Jill Kelley ask the FBI to look at her E-mails when she had a lot to hide as well? Unless she wanted them found?

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

HERE’S an ugly aspect that I haven’t read of anyone yet considering:

MAYBE Broadwell sent those “threatening” emails (or some of them) to Kelley TO COMPROMISE Petraeus, or, specifically, to “make him look bad.”

You never know what people are motivated by, especially hyper-hormonal females (or males) such as Broadwell appears to be (“overachiever, highly competitive, exercises daily, sharpshooter, military rank of major, West Point grad, Harvard, etc.”)…when challenged.

She just might have “felt” jealousy and rage of a degree she controlled and did so by then trying to someone “reduce” Petraeus: it’s the “if I can’t have you, no one can” state of mind that is often the reaction by highly controlling people, such as Broadwell certainly is.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Paula Broadwell
@paulabroadwell

Author (All In: The Education of Gen David Petraeus); National Security Analyst; Army Vet; Women’s Rights Activist; Runner/Skier/Surfer; Wife; Mom!

http://www.paulabroadwell.com

https://twitter.com/paulabroadwell

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

…I won’t be satisfied with any outcome of this scandal…until we all are able to see shirtless pics of the ladies involved…no pics…no peace!

KOOLAID2 on November 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Could be that she had access to it rightfully, per her security clearance, and simply didn’t store it securely.

Uhhh, if the FBI found classified docs on my unclassified computer, then I’d be looking at a trip to the big house in Leavenworth…at least that is always what I thought for the last 50 years.

As to her security clearance…it doesn’t matter. I have a high clearance but I cannot waltz up to SOCOM et al and ask for a show and tell: I don’t have “Need to Know”. She might have “need to know” while in her Guard/Reserve billet for matters pertaining to her Guard/reserve job, but that does not carry over to her book writing.

Dingbat63 on November 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I see a Musical on Broadway,

The ShirtLess Men of the FBI!
(sarc)

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Paula Broadwell
@paulabroadwell

Author (All In: The Education of Gen David Petraeus); National Security Analyst; Army Vet; Women’s Rights Activist; Runner/Skier/Surfer; Wife; Mom!

http://www.paulabroadwell.com

https://twitter.com/paulabroadwell

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

…and questionable ethics.

Gotta’ be something she at least works to improve.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Could be that she had access to it rightfully, per her security clearance, and simply didn’t store it securely.

Uhhh, if the FBI found classified docs on my unclassified computer, then I’d be looking at a trip to the big house in Leavenworth…at least that is always what I thought for the last 50 years.

As to her security clearance…it doesn’t matter. I have a high clearance but I cannot waltz up to SOCOM et al and ask for a show and tell: I don’t have “Need to Know”. She might have “need to know” while in her Guard/Reserve billet for matters pertaining to her Guard/reserve job, but that does not carry over to her book writing.

Dingbat63 on November 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM

BROADWELL IS RECKLESS.

For pity’s sake, even her father was talking to the media soon after this story broke, alluding to “more to come” and things to be unearthed, which reveals his knowledge of something more potent involved which means his daughter made him privy to whatever that extra/other/ultra information is.

IF she had “top secret security clearanc” and was sharing her knowledge with her father, who DOES NOT have the same clearance (and I don’t read that he does), well, then, that’s REALLY RECKLESS. It also violates her “top secret clearance” status.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I would rather have something more than a mysterious someone said

Who said and why do they think she was the E-mailer?

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Twitter on Petraeus,………..a Gold Mine Intell Source!
*********************************************************

Results for #Petraeus

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Petraeus&src=hash

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 8:32 PM

My apologies, and kudos to your wife and girlfriends.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Apologies accepted, calling the dogs off, but sure hope my girlfriends don’t find out about each other, they think they’re the only ones, of course. ;-)

TXUS on November 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Very sad. Determination and wanting to get all the answers and not be BS’d is now a negative and considered “obsessive”.

Must be getting old. In my day that was called being competent.

kim roy on November 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

lol, this tickled my funny bone but it is clear to me that both women felt they were more important than they really are.

CoffeeLover on November 14, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Stone me if you want but that seems to be an affliction with most women esp Americans.

arnold ziffel on November 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

it is clear to me that both women felt they were more important than they really are.

CoffeeLover on November 14, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Dress up these 2 broads in micro-mini skirts+headband as a top+
blonde wigs
and let ‘em go at it on Jerry Springer :D
Patraeus can put on a mullet and sit with his palms tucked between his knees and look dazed !!

burrata on November 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Why would Jill Kelley ask the FBI to look at her E-mails when she had a lot to hide as well? Unless she wanted them found?

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Its called “Book and movie deals”.

I don;t buy much from this admin, have a feeling that a lot of what we are fed as it pertains Broadwell is as fake as is our resident in WH.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

HERE’S an ugly aspect that I haven’t read of anyone yet considering:

MAYBE Broadwell sent those “threatening” emails (or some of them) to Kelley TO COMPROMISE Petraeus, or, specifically, to “make him look bad.”

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Or she is the one being set up because of her speech in Denver.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Whistleblower trusted GOP leaders with sex scandal report that could have sunk Obama’s re-election

A week before the election, an FBI whistleblower went to a Republican member of Congress with explosive details about a national security scandal that could have stopped President Obama’s re-election campaign dead in its tracks. But the potentially devastating “October Surprise” was hushed up by Republicans….

…Despite the explosive nature of the allegations, two Republican members of Congress, Dave Reichert and Eric Cantor, decided to pass on the information to the FBI director and take no action themselves. They didn’t even inform their colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee or in the House leadership. It was a terrible mistake on their part that enabled Obama to escape the damaging repercussions of the scandal right before what many conservatives called the most important presidential election of our lifetimes.

…The whistleblower undoubtedly thought that the Republicans would take the information and act on it, exposing the high-level cover-up before the presidential election. Instead, Cantor was content to let FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was re-appointed by Obama, handle the investigation.

But Cantor knew at that point, because of what the whistleblower had told him, that Mueller had not informed Congress about the probe and was failing to hold Petraeus accountable for his affair and the handling of the classified information. So turning the information over to Mueller was the equivalent of muzzling the whistleblower.

…By going to Mueller, Cantor put the FBI whistleblower’s career in jeopardy. This helps explain why the whistleblower is fast becoming the subject of various negative news reports about his personal life. He trusted the Republicans and they failed him.

INC on November 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM

When is Congress going to call Paula “wannabe” Broadwell to testify?

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Its called “Book and movie deals”.

I don;t buy much from this admin, have a feeling that a lot of what we are fed as it pertains Broadwell is as fake as is our resident in WH.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I agree that much of what we are hearing is being spun at light-speed by Public Relation experts.

It might be as simple as a Book deal cash in.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:36 PM

She just said the FBI guy sent the ‘shirtless photos’ after the investigation began

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM

As they say, TWSS.

TXUS on November 14, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Was the reporter yanked from the story becuz of his political views, and by whom in the FBI.

This government is a sewer. And Obama wants to make government “cool again.”

matthew8787 on November 14, 2012 at 8:37 PM

For pity’s sake, even her father was talking to the media soon after this story broke, alluding to “more to come” and things to be unearthed, which reveals his knowledge of something more potent involved which means his daughter made him privy to whatever that extra/other/ultra information is.

IF she had “top secret security clearanc” and was sharing her knowledge with her father, who DOES NOT have the same clearance (and I don’t read that he does), well, then, that’s REALLY RECKLESS. It also violates her “top secret clearance” status.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Most likely as simple as CIA initially making a statement that Benghazi facility was not a holding tank for ME and African prisoners in response to Broadwell saying it was. Which turned out to be yet another LIE by the admin as we can now see.

More to come most likely means that his daughter knows way more than CIA and admin want to admit. You and I have no idea what her father referred to. For all I know she simply could have told him that exact same phrase, More to come, when they spoke on a phone.

We have no idea.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I would rather have something more than a mysterious someone said…

Who said and why do they think she was the E-mailer?

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:32 PM

I understand your point.

There’s no way to actually PROVE to a certainty that it was Paula Broadwell using Paula Broadwell’s computer to send those emails.

BUt the location of where they originated can be established by the transmitted emails themselves, as can Broadwell’s physical location at the time the emails were sent and if enough of them correlate, then it can be REASONABLY assumed it was Broadwell who sent them.

It’s POSSIBLE that someone else used her computer/s, accessed that email account she shared with Petraeus, and was in the same place at the same time as Broadwell was for the thousdands of transmitted emails. It’s just not probable or likely.

And, agreed, we’re all simply taking what we’re being told about these “thousands of emails sent” to the Hat-and-Balloon Ambassador in Tampa.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Actually, the way this case is going, if I were Fred, I’d be friggin’ thrilled that I got taken off this case.

NavyMustang on November 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM

DON’T DO “MAD MEN” IN A “MAD MAX MEDIA” WORLD.Gentlemen, let General Petraeus serve as a warning — this is not the day you can hide a passionate, handwritten note. You would be amazed at the relationship information put on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.

Mutnodjmet on November 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Anything to direct attention away from the Benghazi ClusterFark and Dear Leader’s abandonment of the Americans there.

VorDaj on November 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I don’t care about these women. I care about what went down in Benghazi.

I was in the Military. All kinds of wierd sexual stuff goes on. Long periods of separation and high stress. There were open swingers and about whatever you can dream up. Yes, there were faithfully married, but there was the other too. It’s not news. Lot’s of women are Military groupies. Deployment “widows”. Hit a Norfolk bar.

I want the facts on the bigger story. Not the sex scandel.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Paula Broadwell
@paulabroadwell

Author (All In: The Education of Gen David Petraeus); National Security Analyst; Army Vet; Women’s Rights Activist; Runner/Skier/Surfer; Wife; Mom!

http://www.paulabroadwell.com

https://twitter.com/paulabroadwell

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

There needs to be a title change…

All In: The Seduction of Gen David Petraeus

Fallon on November 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

She just said the FBI guy sent the ‘shirtless photos’ after the investigation began

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Anything coming out of this family should be treated with a HUGE grain of salt. “Diplomatic immunity” and all that…

From all I know Broadwell may turn out the only believable person in this entire soap opera.

FWIW, I’d love to see Broadwell testify to Congress BEFORE Petraus does. That WILL break open this whole Benghazi cover-up wide open. I would bet on it.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

okay so who is the guy in Tunisia that Graham had to talk to the government of Tunisia to get our people to interrogate him…which the O administation failed to do?

Nothing further has been mentioned.

CoffeeLover on November 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

There is no reason to believe that Cantor made a bad political decision – could have been a set-up. Must remember that nearly all Republicans — most of us included — believed Romney was on his way to a decent win. And it is more likely that it could have blown up in Romney’s face, not Obama. Look what they did to Romney after Benghazi.

matthew8787 on November 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

All In: The Seduction of Gen David Petraeus

Fallon on November 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

The DESK of Gen. David Petraeus, Instructional Video.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Most likely as simple as CIA initially making a statement that Benghazi facility was not a holding tank for ME and African prisoners in response to Broadwell saying it was. Which turned out to be yet another LIE by the admin as we can now see.

More to come most likely means that his daughter knows way more than CIA and admin want to admit. You and I have no idea what her father referred to. For all I know she simply could have told him that exact same phrase, More to come, when they spoke on a phone.

We have no idea.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I’m referring to her security clearance issue (Broadwell’s).

IF she had as she says she now had that she had “top security clearnance and more”, then she certainly violated it by sharing ANYthing of that level of security with her father or anyone else who DIDN’T hold the same security clearance AND have cause to know the information.

It suggests she was rated as to clearance and then ran amok with it, using it to bolster her reputation and not to protect, consistently, the informational process she was responsible to protect. I’m always somewhat suspicious of anyone who goes around telling the public that they’re rated however as Broadwell did (“I have top secret security clearance and then some” she said in a public lecture).

I mean, if you’re entrusted with “top secret and then some” information, what are you/they doing advertising that you know it?

It doesn’t make sense and suggests someone’s a little screwy, one way or another, either psychologically or security-wise. Or both.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

IF she had as she says she now had that she had “top security clearnance and more”, then she certainly violated it by sharing ANYthing of that level of security with her father or anyone else who DIDN’T hold the same security clearance AND have cause to know the information.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Its good that you used IF in your post. Because you have NO IDEA what her father referred to. And neither do I nor anyone else save for her father.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I want the facts on the bigger story. Not the sex scandel.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Yes, you and me, both.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM

There’s no way to actually PROVE to a certainty that it was Paula Broadwell using Paula Broadwell’s computer to send those emails.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:38 PM

She acknowledged the affair and I would like to hear her acknowledge sending those E-mails.

I think we need to hear from everyone involved in this and find out what is going on, because this isn’t just a sex scandal. It’s clearly about something else to do with Benghazi.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM

I sit here tonight seriously wondering if we will ever know what the real story in Benghazi is/was.

CoffeeLover on November 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM

IF she had as she says she now had that she had “top security clearnance and more”, then she certainly violated it by sharing ANYthing of that level of security with her father or anyone else who DIDN’T hold the same security clearance AND have cause to know the information.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Its good that you used IF in your post. Because you have NO IDEA what her father referred to. And neither do I nor anyone else save for her father.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Her father said something to the effect that “there will be more to be revealed, there’s more going on than you’ve been told, worse or more things are going to come out” or thereabouts (not an actual quote, I just paraphrased the father’s statement).

So he’s telling the public that he knows of “bigger, worse, more important things” than we’ve so far come to know.

HOW did he, a basketball coach, know about that “stuff”?

Daughter told him or he’s just a sneaky basketball coach who hacks into the CIA?

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM

…we need to hear from everyone involved in this and find out what is going on, because this isn’t just a sex scandal. It’s clearly about something else to do with Benghazi.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Yes. And it’s evident to even the aimless bystander (or, at least to some) that it’s something being emphasized that efforts to redirect attention off Obama and Benghazi and onto Petraeus and the other players on a evocative level (evocative and therefore, can’t ever be fully established because of the emotional nature of the relationships).

So, yes, you’re right, I agree. Petraeus taking the tact he has is a disappointing one but there’s also obviously a lot more there that’s resulted in what we now see occuring.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Top secret clearances are issued for many reasons. I had one. I handled crypto gear. It didn’t give me access to anything else.

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Yes. And it’s evident to even the aimless bystander (or, at least to some) that it’s something being emphasized that efforts to redirect attention off Obama and Benghazi and onto Petraeus and the other players on a evocative level (evocative and therefore, can’t ever be fully established because of the emotional nature of the relationships).

So, yes, you’re right, I agree. Petraeus taking the tact he has is a disappointing one but there’s also obviously a lot more there that’s resulted in what we now see occuring.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM

I think a lot of people are assuming Petraeus is one of the good guys in this, or a good guy gone astray may be disappointed in that. As far as we can tell from the outside looking in, there isn’t any daylight between Petraeus and Obama.

The motives are too murky for too many of the players to really determine good guys from bad at this point.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

HERE’S an ugly aspect that I haven’t read of anyone yet considering:

MAYBE Broadwell sent those “threatening” emails (or some of them) to Kelley TO COMPROMISE Petraeus, or, specifically, to “make him look bad.”

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Or she is the one being set up because of her speech in Denver.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Broadwell’s speech in Denver was reckless.

She was simply reckless.

The statements she made, just reckless.

I don’t think she should be “destroyed” in the media for being reckless as she was, but, she certainly needed to be reeled in and her so-called “top secret and then some” security clearance revised downward.

Her statements in that Denver speech were just entirely reckless.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I sit here tonight seriously wondering if we will ever know what the real story in Benghazi is/was.

CoffeeLover on November 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM

You see it went like this:
Bush started a secret camp in Benghazi. When Obama found out just what was going on he put an end to it. Now he is still trying to get to the bottom of it—like he did on Fast and Furious.

Just being sarcastic so I don’t start sobbing. Bad days is coming.

arnold ziffel on November 14, 2012 at 8:58 PM

We will find out soon enough if the soldier takes out ceasar.

Are you not entertained?

wolly4321 on November 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Broadwell’s speech in Denver was reckless.

She was simply reckless.

The statements she made, just reckless.

I don’t think she should be “destroyed” in the media for being reckless as she was, but, she certainly needed to be reeled in and her so-called “top secret and then some” security clearance revised downward.

Her statements in that Denver speech were just entirely reckless.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

So…you think she was reckless?

She is far the only one who has told even a sliver of the truth about Benghazi so I am willing to cut her some slack.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Two thoughts:

1. That Jill Kelley is certainly one vivacious bombshell; and
2. I forget.

Jaibones on November 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Her statements in that Denver speech were just entirely reckless.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

They were only ‘reckless’ if they are true. Obama says it was a video.

And, we dont know if someone (DP) told her to leak this.

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Why would Jill Kelley ask the FBI to look at her E-mails when she had a lot to hide as well? Unless she wanted them found?

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Its called “Book and movie deals”.

I don;t buy much from this admin, have a feeling that a lot of what we are fed as it pertains Broadwell is as fake as is our resident in WH.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM

The Jill Kelley thing is interesting only so far as she appears to be the classic person one sends out to compromise the vulnerable among you, or, who you have suspicions about is shaky and “could be” compromised, so you arrange the Jill Kelley’s of the world to cozy up to them and “become friends of the family” or thereabouts.

This whole crowd just suggests a shaky informational situation. Just shaky personnel environment. Noting Kelley and son and sister and husband were all keenly embraced by Democratic Leadership training powow…

Petraeus exercised poor judgement in this case as with Broadwell’s.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Broadwell has man-hands, maybe she is actually a he and GP is gay and this is homosexual cover-up situation.

No more unreasonable than anything else being offered.

Bishop on November 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Hmmmm. Interesting theory. I guess that’s why he’s come out of the Cabinet.

Kenz on November 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Democrats’ CLAMBAKE and fundraising for John Kerry!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/battle_john_allen_also_helped_jill_YjkEYUNY2INC4smBMEYqUI

Jill Kelley and her twin sister…

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Two thoughts:

1. That Jill Kelley is certainly one vivacious bombshell; and
2. I forget.

With an obvious boob and nose job…

ninjapirate on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Democrats’ CLAMBAKE and fundraising for John Kerry!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/battle_john_allen_also_helped_jill_YjkEYUNY2INC4smBMEYqUI

Jill Kelley and her twin sister…

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I saw that last night.

Harrington, according to Khawam’s federal bankruptcy filing earlier this year in Florida, gave her a personal loan of $300,000.

And John Kerry is to be the new Def Secretary.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

What I find remarkable about the public as to Jill Kelley is why her possession of her “title” as “Ambassador” isn’t encouragement to consider she’s not at all well in the head?

It’s one thing to host parties and feel-good events for the military, many respectable people do, but it looks like Jill Kelley and husband (and sister) carried it farther than usual or rational.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Do we actually know if Broadwell sent the E-mails in question? She has acknowledged the affair as has Petraeus, but did she in fact send the E-mails from Petraeus’ account?

Why would she use his account to send them?

Why did these not terribly scary E-mails warrant an FBI investigation?

Why would Jill Kelley ask the FBI to look at her E-mails when she had a lot to hide as well? Unless she wanted them found?

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Apparently, Broadwell and Petraeus had a scheme worked out for communication using only his gmail account. He would write an email to her but not send it, placing it in the ‘Draft’ box. She would then read it by signing in to his account, replying to him but again only putting the response into his ‘Draft’ box.

Somehow they thought that this gave their communications an increased level of security. Stupid, yes, because of course a copy of the message still travels to gmail and sits on their server forever.

Her location, when signing onto Petraeus’s gmail, is determined fairly closely by the IP address used. Gmail is not an ISP, so wherever it’s signed onto you still need to do it through a real ISP account.

slickwillie2001 on November 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Democrats’ CLAMBAKE and fundraising for John Kerry!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/battle_john_allen_also_helped_jill_YjkEYUNY2INC4smBMEYqUI

Jill Kelley and her twin sister…

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I saw that last night.

Harrington, according to Khawam’s federal bankruptcy filing earlier this year in Florida, gave her a personal loan of $300,000.

And John Kerry is to be the new Def Secretary.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Yeah, John Frickin Kerry, still involved in ruining the military and Obama and the DNC just really happy to help him do that.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Harrington, according to Khawam’s federal bankruptcy filing earlier this year in Florida, gave her a personal loan of $300,000.

And John Kerry is to be the new Def Secretary.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Hey, I’m just a random immigrant who attended a CLAMBAKE in the wine-swiggin East Coast and I really would love a loan of 300,000 clams. Oh, YOU can give me the clams? Hey, great, really ?appreciate it. Want some hot sauce with that?

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

And John Kerry is to be the new Def Secretary.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Looks like Jane Fonda is not available for that job …

burrata on November 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

What I find remarkable about the public as to Jill Kelley is why her possession of her “title” as “Ambassador” isn’t encouragement to consider she’s not at all well in the head?

It’s one thing to host parties and feel-good events for the military, many respectable people do, but it looks like Jill Kelley and husband (and sister) carried it farther than usual or rational.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

I’m enraged that the media can’t seem to get this one little fact pinned down. Does she have some kind of official status, paid or not? What’s up with the diplomatic plates on her Merc? What’s the Korean connection? Does the US State Department give these things out? Etc.

slickwillie2001 on November 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Apparently, Broadwell and Petraeus had a scheme worked out for communication using only his gmail account. He would write an email to her but not send it, placing it in the ‘Draft’ box. She would then read it by signing in to his account, replying to him but again only putting the response into his ‘Draft’ box.

Somehow they thought that this gave their communications an increased level of security. Stupid, yes, because of course a copy of the message still travels to gmail and sits on their server forever.

Her location, when signing onto Petraeus’s gmail, is determined fairly closely by the IP address used. Gmail is not an ISP, so wherever it’s signed onto you still need to do it through a real ISP account.

slickwillie2001 on November 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Gmail is not an ISP, so wherever it’s signed onto you still need to do it through a real ISP account. **

With skill, however, the originating IPA can be identified. Even in Gmail. Just to remark about that last statement there quoted **

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Her location, when signing onto Petraeus’s gmail, is determined fairly closely by the IP address used. Gmail is not an ISP, so wherever it’s signed onto you still need to do it through a real ISP account.

slickwillie2001 on November 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

I don’t doubt they could track down the E-mail.

What I wonder is if she is being set up as a means to silence her after the Denver speech. Too many things here just don’t make sense.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:18 PM

With an obvious boob and nose job…

ninjapirate on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Hahahaha…oh, come on! Lighten up, it’s silly season. A majority of voting adult Americans just re-elected a fuc*king imbecile as their President.

Laugh.

Jaibones on November 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Looks like Jane Fonda is not available for that job …

burrata on November 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Veteran Affairs.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM

According to Reuters, the feds have found much more classified information on Broadwell’s computer than they expected to. Could be that she had access to it rightfully, per her security clearance, and simply didn’t store it securely. We’ll see; that’s what the raid on her home two days ago was designed to find out.

Having access to classified documents is one thing, but you’re never authorized to store classified documents on a personal computer, or any other non-secure system. That’s a huge violation, whther you’re authorized to those documents or not. And since you only have access to documents if you have the “need to know,” because it’s part of your job to work with them, she’s probably screwed over twice.

Of course, that assumes that the documents weren’t planted in the first place.

tom on November 14, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Hey, I’m just a random immigrant who attended a CLAMBAKE in the wine-swiggin East Coast and I really would love a loan of 300,000 clams. Oh, YOU can give me the clams? Hey, great, really ?appreciate it. Want some hot sauce with that?

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

$300,000 dollars is an awful lot to hand over to a girlfriend even if being a Democratic fundraiser is a VERY well paid position.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

There needs to be a title change…

All In: The Seduction of Gen David Petraeus

Fallon on November 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Fallon:Exactly,I watched Broadwell discuss Petraeus,its more like stalking!:)
============

In her prepared remarks, Broadwell, who attended the university’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies, spoke at length of her career ambitions. “My longterm goal had always been to become national security advisor,” she said.

That’s probably not going to happen now.

You can watch the video below. The relevant portion begins at minute 35:

VIDEO:(41:03)
=============

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/11/did_petraeus_mistress_reveal_new_benghazi_details

canopfor on November 11, 2012 at 10:44 PM

canopfor on November 12, 2012 at 10:14 PM

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Her statements in that Denver speech were just entirely reckless.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

They were only ‘reckless’ if they are true. Obama says it was a video.

And, we dont know if someone (DP) told her to leak this.

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I disagree. Her speech was reckless whether what she said was true or not. She was breezily saying there existed a possibility of some “CIA Prison” at the Libya embassy and that “it’s still being vetted”…

Could very well be true, could very well not be true. But her as some person of military rank making such remarks is just entirely reckless, to a public assembly.

It sounds to me that Broadwell is more concerned or preoccupied with her STATUS of being important or, rather, just plain old egotistical bragging for purposes of impacting others, than she is able to discriminate carefully in professional terms.

It’s just a reckless speech. Just reckless.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Maybe “Dr Death ” Ezekiel Emanuel as Sec HHS :(

burrata on November 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Democrats’ CLAMBAKE and fundraising for John Kerry!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/battle_john_allen_also_helped_jill_YjkEYUNY2INC4smBMEYqUI

Jill Kelley and her twin sister…

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Lourdes:I had a gut-feeling they were raising Democrat loot,thanks
for the Linky!:)

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

faraway on November 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I disagree. Her speech was reckless whether what she said was true or not. She was breezily saying there existed a possibility of some “CIA Prison” at the Libya embassy and that “it’s still being vetted”…

Could very well be true, could very well not be true. But her as some person of military rank making such remarks is just entirely reckless, to a public assembly.

It sounds to me that Broadwell is more concerned or preoccupied with her STATUS of being important or, rather, just plain old egotistical bragging for purposes of impacting others, than she is able to discriminate carefully in professional terms.

It’s just a reckless speech. Just reckless.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

In other words, trying to prove how macho you are — by special facts peppered in your speech to the average public — or by waving your massive guns or massively huge new red sportscar in the parking lot of the high school and things of that nature…it’s done by people who are insecure and it communicates weakness, not power.

In Broadwell’s case as to that Denver speech, it communicated, she did by what she said, that she was NOT RELIABLE. Cavalier dropping of “sounds important and top secret” “stuff” in a public speech just revealed her as a comedienne, not a major.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Wasn’t it reported that they were investigating the friend based on a shirtless pic? They are going after the guy because he interfered with their plot, and there was something about a shirtless pic in the news a few months ago so they thought they could make a good red herring out of it to diminish the guy.

They made a red herring out of another guy and threw him in jail to advance their coverup narrative. That is the worst thing I’ve ever heard of. If it doesn’t get Obama impeached, prosecuted and jailed, then literally nothing would.

Buddahpundit on November 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

EXCLUSIVE: Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack

By Jennifer Griffin, Adam Housley
Published November 12, 2012
FoxNews.com

I realize that’s a leading hedline there ^^ but read the contents if you’re interested, it reveals a few things.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters

Petraeus mistress had substantial classified data on computer: sources http://reut.rs/XGOBFy
=============================

Petraeus mistress had substantial classified data on computer: sources

WASHINGTON | Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:53pm EST
*****************************************

(Reuters) – A computer used by Paula Broadwell, the woman whose affair with CIA Director David Petraeus led to his resignation, contained substantial classified information that should have been stored under more secure conditions, law enforcement and national security officials said on Wednesday.
(More….)
===========

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/15/us-usa-generals-idUSBRE8AD0GT20121115

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Wasn’t it reported that they were investigating the friend based on a shirtless pic? They are going after the guy because he interfered with their plot, and there was something about a shirtless pic in the news a few months ago so they thought they could make a good red herring out of it to diminish the guy.

They made a red herring out of another guy and threw him in jail to advance their coverup narrative. That is the worst thing I’ve ever heard of. If it doesn’t get Obama impeached, prosecuted and jailed, then literally nothing would.

Buddahpundit on November 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Obviously, all these government jobs Obama thinks he’s great for creating are not working out too well as to training, competency and performance.

Loooks like our nation was in bettter hands with less people in government but more competent and better trained ones.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM

O/T… Democrat Obama lover guy on Hannity just said:

“calling Susan Rice a liar is a lie…you should apologize for that…we don’t know if she lied or not, you should apologize for calling her a liar…”

Gahhh, dense doesn’t begin to describe the handicap psychologically this nation currently has with a budding majority of very stupid or willingly foolish people.

Lourdes on November 14, 2012 at 9:32 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/15/us-usa-generals-idUSBRE8AD0GT20121115

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Hey Canopfor, serious question: Have you ever considering setting up a news aggregator site?

I am sure you would get a lot of traffic from many of us here at hotair.

can_con on November 14, 2012 at 9:34 PM

UGH…….a new front has opened up……………..

Report: Air Force trainers had improper relationships with dozens of students – @washingtonpost

17 mins ago from http://www.washingtonpost.com by editor
======================================================

Updated: Wednesday, November 14, 7:14 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/air-force-trainers-had-improper-relationships-with-dozens-of-students-report-finds/2012/11/14/dfecb8e6-2ea4-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM

I’m enraged that the media can’t seem to get this one little fact pinned down. Does she have some kind of official status, paid or not? What’s up with the diplomatic plates on her Merc? What’s the Korean connection? Does the US State Department give these things out? Etc.

slickwillie2001 on November 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Having been an Honorary Consul before, here’s how it works. The country, South Korea here, names who it wants for its “Honorary Consuls” and gives the list to our State Department. Sometimes, State “suggests” to the other countries whom they should name as HCs, what I think may have happened here.

Anyway, State ultimately approves who can be HCs and who also gets the State Department IDs and license tag authorizations. It’s nothing but a ceremonial position and may or may not get you out of a parking or speeding ticket here or there, if the locals don’t know the real deal, but it has no legal perks as does a formal Consular position would.

TXUS on November 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM

canopfor on November 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Taken with all of the other military slurs and offings of late, this really seems to be a putsch. No kidding. Probably coming from above (i.e. valjar), but could even just be the LSM getting its rocks off by sliming the military (while valjar looks on approvingly).

bofh on November 14, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Director of Central Intelligence and four-star General David Petraeus:

Forced to resign, FBI criminal investigation ongoing and a courts martial/Federal prosecuton for adultery, disclosure of classified materials, perjury, or lying to the Federal government.

Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, nominee for NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Four-star General John Allen:

Nomination from SACEUR post put on hold, FBI and military investigations ongoing.

Four-star General of AFRICOM Carter Ham:

Obama announced that he would replace General Carter Ham with General David Rodriguez at AFRICOM on 19 October 2012 with no reason liven.

You probably haven’t heard about the 4th Four-star General…

Four-star General Ward, one of the highest-ranking African-American generals ever:

Stole money to furnish his house, take his wife and him on lavish shopping trips, and roaring through town in a motorcade -. He gets retired as a three star.

He doesn’t get fired.

He isn’t courts martialed.

He is allowed to “retire” as a three-start General.

Hmm. Let’s see what might account for the difference in treatment….Why isn’t he prosecuted for embezzlement or theft?

Resist We Much on November 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2