Video: CIA to investigate Petraeus as he testifies?

posted at 9:41 am on November 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In a story line full of credibility-stretching coincidences, NBC brings us one that doesn’t even clear the laugh test.  Just two days after David Petraeus offered to testify on his knowledge of the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, and on the same day when the first of those appearances by the former CIA director will take place, NBC News breaks the story that the agency will open an investigation into Petraeus’ affair with biographer Paula Broadwell to see if Petraeus abused CIA resources to conduct it.

Yes, I’m certain that’s their concern:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Well, let’s check the timeline on this, shall we? DNI James Clapper knew about the affair for at least ten days now, as has the CIA. The FBI and the Department of Justice both knew about it — and didn’t think that the issue was notable enough to inform the White House about it until Election Day, or the Congressional intelligence committees at all. Senator Dianne Feinstein noted last Sunday on Fox News that Petraeus is hardly the first DCI to have extramarital affairs while running the agency.  Did the IG open investigations into those affairs — particularlyafter a resignation, and at the same time that the former Directors offered to testify in an embarrassing scandal involving the White House?

Should there be an investigation as to how Broadwell got access to classified material?  Absolutely, although the FBI and DoJ seemed oddly reluctant to make that an issue until the story leaked.  This leak looks more like a message rather than due diligence, though.


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

And the Obama purge continues.

Axion on November 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Regime

forest on November 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Right on cue! I get the feeling Petraeus isn’t the sort who will care about being investigated/intimidated.

scalleywag on November 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Mighty nice retirement you have there, General. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

just a coincidence

fog of war

bumpy roads and such

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

This is sure to confuse conservative slaves – who vacillate from “Petraeus Maximus” to “Petraeus the Betrayer” on a daily basis according to which side they think he’ll come down on.

Of course – the only way to save his reputation with conservative slaves is sh!t on Obama – and false testimony is acceptable to that end.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

This Obama purge is about to make the “night of the long knives” look like a fraternity stunt. If it wasn’t so destructive, dangerous and frightening, it would be knee slapping hilarious. God help us because that’s all we have left.

rplat on November 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Leading from behind …

ShainS on November 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

This leak looks more like a message rather than due diligence, though.

Won’t matter if he will just sack up in testimony today. I assume one of the questioners will be interested in his motive for saying what he did in the first briefing.

a capella on November 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

If you’re going down, may as well take them all with you.

Zaggs on November 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

A Chicago nudge from the white house

cmsinaz on November 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Right on cue! I get the feeling Petraeus isn’t the sort who will care about being investigated/intimidated.

scalleywag on November 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Which is why what he first told Congress is the truth

plewis on November 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM

On the one hand, I would hope this is enough of an affront to Petraus’s honor to get him to tell the whole truth.

On the other hand, he was not only cheating on his, wife, but his mistress too…so I don’t have a lot of faith that he will do the right thing when Obama is transparently threatening him.

Speaking of which, any of the cowards in the state media willing to ask the Obama regime why they are trying to silence the one man, besides Obama, who knows the most about what really happened in Benghazi?

18-1 on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Isn’t the purging of Generals the thing Banana Republics do to fend off a perceived coup?

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

That the DCI was pulling the wool over the agency eyes is laughable.
If they did nothing about it then, they have no right to investigate now.
The only question I have on this matter is how could the CIA allow the DCI to have such an affair ? Of course they knew.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Anything to save the king.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Which is why what he first told Congress is the truth
plewis on November 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM

You actually think the youtube clip is the cause ?

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Which is why what he first told Congress is the truth

plewis on November 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM

he first told Congress it was the video – this is the polar opposite of a fatal movie review.

Can you read?

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Isn’t the purging of Generals the thing Banana Republics do to fend off a perceived coup?

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Or to pave the way for one.

*cough* EGYPT and TURKEY *cough*

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Party like it’s 1936 Soviet Russia!

Caper29 on November 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Can you imagine for a moment if Bush had gotten up from reading “Pet Goat”, flown home and instructed his administration to tell the world that there had been a wild demonstration in the airport in Boston that led to the hijacking of planes that were then flown into buildings and crashed in a field and ended up killing thousands of people? And then he went to Vegas to campaign and went to bed? And then he partied with Beyonce and Jay Z and made an appearance on Letterman? What kind of callous, incompetent fool would do something like that? The media would have burned him at the stake, and as a matter of fact they STILL criticize him for reading the book.

scalleywag on November 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

We need someone, anyone with character to spill the beans. Right now the coverup is in full force.

My view;

Obama was using catching Bin laden and “dismantaling” Al Queda as a campaign strategy. Further, he was going to play up his role in stabelizing Libya. Then the 9/11 attack occured, right in the middle of a close election.His coverup began, Politics over national security.

So Obama made the conscience decision to let our ambassator and other seals died to continue his campaign meme.

Who will have the courage to bring obama down, knowning that Obama & the media will attempt to destroy them.

Danielvito on November 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Isn’t the purging of Generals the thing Banana Republics do to fend off a perceived coup?

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Saddam Hussein fed the generals he perceived as unloyal to hungry Rottweilers. This Hussein just uses his media puppets instead. Dogs are smarter, IMHO, and much more humane.

Archivarix on November 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

In a just world Obama would be impeached

In a just afterlife he’ll proceed straight to Hell – Do Not Pass Go

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

NBC News breaks the story that the agency will open an investigation into Petraeus’ affair with biographer Paula Broadwell to see if Petraeus abused CIA resources to conduct it.

Of course he did. Once he started humping her, any resource that facilitated her being with him — travel, housing, meals, time on the job — was a resource conducted to continue it. And that will be the sales pitch, not, rightly, to address the abuse of CIA resources, but to further destroy his credibility* in testifying about Benghazi.

* Watch “Enemy of the State” for an action-packed primer on the subject of destroying credibility of witnesses.

Dusty on November 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

We are about to head over a fiscal cliff,
Afghanastan is a mess,
Our Ambassador to Libya is dead and the govt. is clueless on how it happened,
Hurricane Sandy has left a swath of devistation that is taking forever to fix,
Wars are errupting in Syria and Gaza,
The economy is sputtering at best (50 Million unemployed or more),
There’s a love triangle at the CIA,
There’s a love pentagon at a Tampa military base,
The republican Party is rudderless,
The stockmarket is “correcting” or maybe it’s something worse,
But the Fed has promised to print $40B a month or more forever, and
No one understands the impacts of Obamacare

The nation is like an episode of Soap. Stay tuned for next week’s zanniness!

Deafdog on November 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Will he or won’t he…

SWalker on November 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Anything to save the king.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Disgusting isn’t it?

workingclass artist on November 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I know this has been said a thousand times, but Geezus H! Can you imagine if this was a Republican president? The media would be calling for impeachment, not whispering and giggling about an Old Man’s sex life.

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

If he throws Dear Leader under the bus…the corrupt media will rip him apart…

d1carter on November 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Glad to see that the CIA is all over the affair… finally…
/s

Khun Joe on November 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Who will have the courage to bring obama down, knowning that Obama & the media will attempt to destroy them.

Danielvito on November 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Been saying for awhile, is there ONE Gop’er who has the testicular fortitude to go full throttle on this…damn their career, damn their constituents, damn everything–to find out the truth…

ONE

hillsoftx on November 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Smart Power!

pain train on November 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Petraeus is no threat to Obama. Based on the interview of Peter King it is my opinion that the hearing had to be kept private in order to protect the lying witness, the inept questioners and the corrupted and incompetent Intelligence Industry.

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Of course he did. Once he started humping her, any resource that facilitated her being with him — travel, housing, meals, time on the job — was a resource conducted to continue it. And that will be the sales pitch, not, rightly, to address the abuse of CIA resources, but to further destroy his credibility* in testifying about Benghazi.

* Watch “Enemy of the State” for an action-packed primer on the subject of destroying credibility of witnesses.

Dusty on November 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I am going to guess that affair was conducted WITH CIA cooperation.
To sully DP with this, is to sully ALL the CIA.
CIA is complicit in the affair and SHOULD NOT be considered a credible investigative arm.

Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus testifies in a closed-door hearing that immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack ‘Al Qaeda involvement’ was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to Rep. Peter King.

Wait…what? Who removed that line and why.

Charlie H. Crist on a cross, the ‘rats are so invested in AQ being dead after Bark knifed Bin Laden that they are editing out everything have to do with terrorism.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

This whole Petraeus affair looks like they copied it straight out of Greshem’s novel/movie, “The Firm”.

teffertoes on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Let us supply some critical thinking.

We must first remember the goal of Psi-Ops which is to make the unplausible seem plausible and this is accomplished my making the plausible seem unplausible.

What the CIA reported initially was a demonstration fueled by the Egyptian demonstration and whatever fueled that demonstration. Nothing in the CIA report mentions the silly video in question. This is what Petraeus reported to congress and the truth as far as he knew it.

Somewhere between the CIA and Rice the issue of the video was added and Rice reported that. Or more correctly, parroted it, but it is the truth as she knew it.

What we found out (which the CIA didn’t initially believe themselves) is that the attack was orchestrated by a powerful terrorist group for a very specific purpose. Question here is, why did the CIA not know this right from the start? Either they are dumb and misread the warnings, or they faked themselves out with their own Psi-Ops, assuming this kind of terrorist attack so implausible that they couldn’t believe it when they saw it.

Now… we have so much implausible arm-chair generalling going on that nobody can tell what is plausible or implausbile, and filling in the details with their imaginations.

Here is the most plausible story:

The CIA didn’t know or didn’t realize the attack was an orchestrated terrorist attack and that is why they didn’t ask for or send in backup.

The cover-up is the government, Administration, Sec.Def., CIA, covering up the fact that they were totally fooled (and incompetent) in mistaking this coordinated attack as a mere political demonstration.

What we don’t know is where Rice got the information that this was all caused by the silly video. So, lets look back at what I said about Psi-Ops.

The most logically implausible story is the one Rice told about the video being the cause, but emotionally it is the story everyone wants to accept as plausible.

What is most plausible is the CIA and government intel where simply caught by surprise and failed to properly react. Nobody wants to believe our intel community could be this incompetent so we are taking this simple explanation as implausible, when logically it is the only version of events that makes any logical sense.

Furthermore, Petraeus is an honorable military officer, he would not resign his post over an intel kerfluffle. Nobody asked him to resign or challenged him to resign. His resignation is purely based on getting caught with his pants down, a direct violation of his own personal honor code.

The truth here is so simple that absolutely nobody is going to accept it, and thus fuel the continual Psi-Ops cover-up of the incompetence involved.

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

The Boys From Chicago take aim at Petraeus’ the other kneecap.

farsighted on November 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

This whole Petraeus affair looks like they copied it straight out of Greshem’s novel/movie, “The Firm”.

teffertoes on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

+1 “All sorts of intimate acts, oral and whatnot..”

Caper29 on November 16, 2012 at 10:22 AM

The truth here is so simple that absolutely nobody is going to accept it, and thus fuel the continual Psi-Ops cover-up of the incompetence involved.

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Or, your hypothesis is completely full of shit. That the CIA knew right from the start it was a terrorist action, reported to the Whitehouse that it was a terrorists attack and the whitehouse removed the report’s reference to it being a terrorists attack because a terrorists attack by Al Qaeda was a total and complete refutation of their post Bin Laden narrative.

SWalker on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Stay tuned for next week’s zanniness!

Deafdog on November 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Same Obama Time-

Same Obama Channel!!

Deano1952 on November 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

This whole Petraeus affair looks like they copied it straight out of Greshem’s novel/movie, “The Firm”.

teffertoes on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I’ve thought the same thing. Truth stranger than fiction?

conservative pilgrim on November 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

And that will be the sales pitch, not, rightly, to address the abuse of CIA resources, but to further destroy his credibility* in testifying about Benghazi.

Dusty on November 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Are they trying to destroy his credibility, or are they trying to keep him from testifying truthfully in the first place? If the threat of an investigation/criminal charges is hanging over his head, Petraeus has to contemplate the prospect of spending thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars of his savings on lawyer fees to defend himself (and/or watching the administration destroy the reputation and savings of his girlfriend, with the potential of criminal charges being lodged against her, too).

Keeping himself (and/or his girlfriend) from getting sucked into that muck might serve as a pretty powerful inducement to Petraeus to . . . shape . . . his testimony in a way that is more helpful to the administration’s goals.

AZCoyote on November 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

After Petraeus spills the beans, the WH will just say that you cannot trust the testimony of a disgruntled ex-employee because they are in the middle of a sexual misconduct investigation. I have no doubt they have all their bases covered.

TexAz on November 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

After Petraeus spills the beans, the WH will just say that you cannot trust the testimony of a disgruntled ex-employee because they are in the middle of a sexual misconduct investigation. I have no doubt they have all their bases covered.

TexAz on November 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Nah, they would likely march Bill Clinton out to ironically tell the American people that Petraeus cannot be trusted because he had an affair.

weaselyone on November 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I hate to see a president impeached.

Unfortunately, an impeachment is the only way any part of this will be weighed in the national press. They are covering it you say?

They don’t say it. They paint it:

The narrative? This inquiry is bogus.

Somebody tell Governor Jindal so he can see how all his new bffs (friends) operate. The left is back to hate for Senator McCain!

He skipped a meeting on some small aspect of this.

The Dems already have the military and Latino vote in the books so a moderate on those issues is expendable for the media.

He is picking on a poor African American gov’t employee.

Bobby, I can give you some warnings about the press from Indian philosophy as they do about private industry and virtue.

Look it up. I would write about it but people here think I am nuts now.

IlikedAUH2O on November 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM

tomorrow we will learn the IRS is auditing his tax returns. By next week the city will be investigating the legality of his in-ground swimming pool.

katablog.com on November 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

********* ALERT ***************

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus tells lawmakers he believed all along Libya consulate attack was terrorist strike – @AP

4 mins ago from hosted.ap.org by editor
===========================================

Nov 16, 10:34 AM EST

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GENERALS_SCANDAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-16-10-34-22

canopfor on November 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Basilsbest on November 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

You are confused. Owe, the lying witness, didn’t testify this morning, Petraeus did.

katablog.com on November 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Petraeus testifies at closed-door Benghazi hearings, does not discuss affair details

By Ed O’Keefe, Updated: Friday, November 16, 10:25 AM
******************************************************

Former CIA director David Petraeus gave testimony about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya Friday but did not discuss details of his extramarital affair with his biographer, according to lawmakers.

The retired four-star military general and spy chief was not seen by reporters as he arrived early Friday to meet with the House and Senate intelligence committees in closed briefings. The separate hearings occurred in secret briefing rooms three floors underground in the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center.

Petraeus gave a 20-minute opening statement to the House panel and took about 70 minutes of questions, according to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who said the former director did not comment nor was he asked about his extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

“It was made clear at the start that would not be a focus of the questioning,” King told reporters. Petraeus told lawmakers, however, that the affair had no effect on his testimony, King said.

“He now clearly believes that it [the Sept. 11 attacks] did not arise out of a demonstration, that it was not spontaneous and it was clear terrorist involvement,” King said. King said that to the best of his recollection, Petraeus’s testimony differed from what he told the committee at a previous hearing on Sept. 14.
(More…)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-arrives-on-capitol-hill-for-closed-door-benghazi-hearings/2012/11/16/ab0dd2f8-2fea-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story.html
===================================================

VIA:
====

Catherine Crier ‏@CatherineCrier

#Petraeus is on Capitol Hill today for closed-door hearings on #Benghazi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-arrives-on-capitol-hill-for-closed-door-benghazi-hearings/2012/11/16/ab0dd2f8-2fea-11e2-ac4a-33b8b41fb531_story.html

Results for #Petraeus

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

canopfor on November 16, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Isn’t the purging of Generals the thing Banana Republics do to fend off a perceived coup?

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Saddam Hussein also did the same thing.

In November 1969 Hussein became vice president and deputy chairman of the powerful Revolutionary Command Council. At first his internal security apparatuses destroyed the party’s real and perceived enemies: Communists, radical Islamists, Nasserists, pro-Western politicians, and pro-Syrian officers; and they even hanged in a public square helpless young Jews to demonstrate their Iraqi and Arab patriotism. The next step, however, was to gradually eliminate Hussein’s personal rivals within the party. On July 16, 1979, Hussein replaced Bakr as president. A few days later, he purged all those in the party and armed forces whom he considered a threat. Hundreds were shot by firing squads, and Hussein became an absolute dictator.

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Official Democrat/Liberal/Media talking point in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…

This is sure to confuse conservative slaves – who vacillate from “Petraeus Maximus” to “Petraeus the Betrayer” on a daily basis according to which side they think he’ll come down on.

Of course – the only way to save his reputation with conservative slaves is sh!t on Obama – and false testimony is acceptable to that end.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Of course, as someone once said, “to believe this requires the willfuol suspension of disbelief”.

Kenz on November 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Obama’s gonna need a bigger bus.

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM

All who eat Obama’s sh*t must die from it.

May you all suffocate, you fools. It ain’t Beluga caviar.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Which is why what he first told Congress is the truth

plewis on November 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Which contradicts what Obama said.

Is your brain, if you have one, engaged?

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

He did not resign. He was fired.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Hillary in 2007:

“Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”

There you go General. Nothing’s really changed, has it?

If you want to dine with Satan, you better bring a long spoon.

Curtiss on November 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Every one of those liberal media reporters at the Congressional investigation should be asked: “are you totally confident that Eric Holder is not reading your emails?”

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Furthermore, Petraeus is an honorable military officer,…

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Ah, no. Nothing “honorable” about a deceiver and an adulterer.

crash72 on November 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Petraeus is no innocent, naive, 18-year-old soldier. He knew what the consequences could be if he got caught and had the affair anyway. He has only himself to blame for his situation.

He’s now said that the attack was planned and not the result of a “spontaneous demonstration”, which means he lied the first time he testified.

He’s violated both his oath and his marriage vows.

Common Sense on November 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM

This is sure to confuse conservative slaves – who vacillate from “Petraeus Maximus” to “Petraeus the Betrayer” on a daily basis according to which side they think he’ll come down on.

Of course – the only way to save his reputation with conservative slaves is sh!t on Obama – and false testimony is acceptable to that end.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 9:48

Yet another ‘pearl’ of imbecility from the easily most intellectually challenged poster here….Hahaha, ‘conservative slaves’, this coming from the same cretinoid ape who voted for Obama, must be more lucrative to be an Obama slave, to get some pathetic freebies on the back of those who actually work, unlike you, no? …so,what did you get, free Depends for the rest of our sorry little life? :)…. Do yourself a favor, old fool, keep your pie hole shut, nobody cares what a vapid Obama voter fool like you has to say.

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus testifies in a closed-door hearing that immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack ‘Al Qaeda involvement’ was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to Rep. Peter King.

Wait…what? Who removed that line and why.

Charlie H. Crist on a cross, the ‘rats are so invested in AQ being dead after Bark knifed Bin Laden that they are editing out everything have to do with terrorism.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I think they use a search engine that first identify all ‘AQ’ and ‘terrorism’ words from official reports, then they purge them so they don’t make it in their official communication and press releases to the public :)…

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Counter-intelligence is the FBI’s bailiwick. The CIA has no business investigating itself.

mojo on November 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

[Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM]

I think I agree with all of that. I particularly agree the CIA should not be the arm investigating it. Personally, I don’t think they should be investigating it at all. The “rightly” I used was a technical/principled use, but considering the resource abuse that is running amok at the Federal level, anything Patraeus did is small potatoes by comparison and an abuse or federal resources.

[AZCoyote on November 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM]

I think it’s both in the sense that one way or another they’ll use/not use the info to have Obama’s spin reign supreme in the public’s mind.

Dusty on November 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Isn’t the purging of Generals the thing Banana Republics do to fend off a perceived coup?

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Or to pave the way for one.

*cough* EGYPT and TURKEY *cough*

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

…well there is no DOJ anymore…so

KOOLAID2 on November 16, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Well, let’s check the timeline on this, shall we? DNI James Clapper knew about the affair for at least ten days now, as has the CIA. The FBI and the Department of Justice both knew about it — and didn’t think that the issue was notable enough to inform the White House about it until Election Day, or the Congressional intelligence committees at all. Senator Dianne Feinstein noted last Sunday on Fox News that Petraeus is hardly the first DCI to have extramarital affairs while running the agency. Did the IG open investigations into those affairs — particularlyafter a resignation, and at the same time that the former Directors offered to testify in an embarrassing scandal involving the White House?

Should there be an investigation as to how Broadwell got access to classified material? Absolutely, although the FBI and DoJ seemed oddly reluctant to make that an issue until the story leaked. This leak looks more like a message rather than due diligence, though.

I have to think, at some point, you’ve done enough investigations….

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 17, 2012 at 12:22 AM