Green Room

NYT: FBI agent involved in Petraeus case pursued it because of his “worldview”

posted at 10:34 am on November 13, 2012 by

I’ll hit this on the blog later too but I want to push it out bright and early, as it’s a wrinkle in last night’s post about the shirtless circus clowns who govern us:

Ms. Kelley, a volunteer with wounded veterans and military families, brought her complaint to a rank-and-file agent she knew from a previous encounter with the F.B.I. office, the official also said. That agent, who had previously pursued a friendship with Ms. Kelley and had earlier sent her shirtless photographs of himself, was “just a conduit” for the complaint, he said. He had no training in cybercrime, was not part of the cyber squad handling the case and was never assigned to the investigation.

But the agent, who was not identified, continued to “nose around” about the case, and eventually his superiors “told him to stay the hell away from it, and he was not invited to briefings,” the official said. The Wall Street Journal first reported on Monday night that the agent had been barred from the case.

Later, the agent became convinced — incorrectly, the official said — that the case had stalled. Because of his “worldview,” as the official put it, he suspected a politically motivated cover-up to protect President Obama.

The impression I got from last night’s Journal piece was that the FBI agent had become obsessed with Kelley and ended up sending her shirtless photos of himself after the investigation had begun. In other words, he was letting his supposed attraction to her interfere with his professional duties in handling the case. This NYT piece makes it sound like something different: The shirtless pics happened before any of this came out, then later Kelley sought him out for help once she started getting e-mails from Broadwell. It was his anti-Obama politics, if the sources here are to be believed, that led him to pursue the case, not any alleged infatuation with Kelley. He was obsessed, it seems, with the possibility of a cover up, not so much with her.

Which is not to say the two are mutually exclusive. Maybe he had a thing for her and wanted to impress her by pursuing the investigation and suspected a cover-up to protect O. But Mollie Hemingway asks a good question: Why are we getting two different versions of what this guy’s core motive was? Is someone retaliating against him by trying to ruin his reputation?

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Short answer – YES. God, I am giving so many sort answers these days.

djl130 on November 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM

The NYT article says the shirtless FBI agent was never officially part of the investigation. According to the article this FBI agent was showing his nipple hairs to Kelly before the investigation. According to the article Kelly used the nipple exhibitionist to complain to the FBI, but he was never part of the investigation. Any investigating he did was on his own time, and according to the article he got in trouble for sticking his nipples into an investigation he wasn’t a part of.

This tells me there is far too much focus on the nipple monster FBI agent in this story. He wasn’t the investigating agent.

NotCoach on November 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Nor did Mrs. Kelley appear to object to the Nipple hair photos…

Again, when Kelley gave the feds access to her account, she opened a Pandora’s box.

Blake on November 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM

When you see a guy working so hard at the behest of an attractive female friend there is only one conclusion. He wanted to have sex with her and thought there was a reasonable chance he would. Given the disclosure of her communications with Allen it’s pretty clear she gave these men plenty of reason to think they would get lucky, even if they never actually did. The never actually did is probably the main reason he was still pursuing helping her so adamantly.

BTW, it’s obvious she never complained about his effort to pursue a “friendship” with her through shirtless photos or the guy would not have still had his job.

Rocks on November 13, 2012 at 10:55 AM

And the NYT doesn’t write “stories” based upon IT’S world view ?

Pot, meet kettle.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Nor did Mrs. Kelley appear to object to the Nipple hair photos…

Again, when Kelley gave the feds access to her account, she opened a Pandora’s box.

Blake on November 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM

So far I dont feel certain how this actually started. Lot of smoke , lot of mirrors.

the_nile on November 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Is someone retaliating against him by trying to ruin his reputation?

What, in this administration?

Nah …

/Tommy Flanagan (“yeah, that’s the ticket!”)

ShainS on November 13, 2012 at 10:59 AM

But Mollie Hemingway asks a good question: Why are we getting two different versions of what this guy’s core motive was? Is someone retaliating against him by trying to ruin his reputation?

The whole thing does not reflect well upon Dear Liar, so of course anyone involved is going to have his reputation smeared. It’s the Chicago way. Doesn’t need to make sense, it’s simply a reflex action.

rbj on November 13, 2012 at 11:00 AM

So, anyone wonder what other ‘duties’ as a ‘social liason’ she performed.

Starting to sound like a bad romance novel..

ChuckTX on November 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Or maybe the guy was right, and the case was being slow-walked so that it wouldn’t break before the election…

…you’d never see that considered in the NYT, though.

JEM on November 13, 2012 at 11:12 AM

blink on November 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Distraction, and more distraction. He wasn’t involved in the investigation so his roll in all of this is somewhat irrelevant since he was not being investigated either. And FBI agents aren’t responsible for national security. And I really don’t care if he is a Democrat, Republican, or Paul-Bot. I just want to know why 4 Americans were left to die.

NotCoach on November 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Just to reiterate: I’m not seeing anyone claim that this guy is a conservative.

blink

No offense, but if he is politically “anti-Obama”, yours may be a distinction without a difference.

Knott Buyinit on November 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM

No offense, but if he is politically “anti-Obama”, yours may be a distinction without a difference.

Knott Buyinit on November 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Eric “My people” Holder and “Justice is Blind”

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Val Jarrett: There is going to be hell to pay for those who opposed us….

d1carter on November 13, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Timeline:

1. FBI investigates CIA and Army commanders looking for dirt
2. Benghazi on 9-11
3. Obama uses to dirt to keep peeps in line
4. Peeps rebel
5. Obama discredits future Benghazi witnesses

Everyone knows this is what’s going on. There is no mystery here.

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM

“Reward our friends, punish our enemies.”

The O’s administration tag line that sends shivers up my spine.

tru2tx on November 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM

How can anyone keep up ? We’ve got 50 Titanics going on, plus I’m still trying to keep my day job.

The long view is it’s a “War on the Military”, to go along with the “War on Religion”, in addition to the “War on Prosperity”.

In other words, a “War on God” is what it boils down to.

williampeck1958 on November 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Why do we care what this guys motives were and not who ordered the security arrangements for Benghazi?

BKeyser on November 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I don’t see it as two different explanations, but instead two different issues.

He wanted the emails pursued from the beginning because he had a crush on Kelley. That’s why he got over involved. He wanted to impress her/protect her/find out who his competition was.

BUT he thought the FBI was tabling it because they were protecting the president.

The reason he pursued it: Because he had a crush on Kelley
The reason he thought the FBI was not pursuing it: His worldview told him they would protect Obama

MayBee on November 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I clicked on the headline to confirm my assessment — that the NYT is painting him as a crazed right wing partisan. Confirmed.

farsighted on November 13, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Is someone retaliating against him by trying to ruin his reputation?

That’s not a rhetorical question?

Why would anyone do anything like that?

Who would do anything like that?

Not the Obama crew. They would never do anything like that. Never.

novaculus on November 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM

NYT spinning their “worldview” into the narrative.

jake49 on November 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM