Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Of course someone in such a sensitive role should resign if they're found to be having an affair, particularly if they concealed it from vetting. How is this even a conversation? Having an affair makes you vulnerable to blackmail, at the very least.

Put your "/tinfoil" on...

It's the timing that's awkward (right after the election).

So... did someone in the Administration (not necessarily Obama or Clinton) knew about this and decided to put a lid on it for fear of impacting the election?

Probably. So what? It's bloody good idea, if you ask me. That's politics.

 Albatross wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Of course someone in such a sensitive role should resign if they're found to be having an affair, particularly if they concealed it from vetting. How is this even a conversation? Having an affair makes you vulnerable to blackmail, at the very least.

Put your "/tinfoil" on...

It's the timing that's awkward (right after the election).

So... did someone in the Administration (not necessarily Obama or Clinton) knew about this and decided to put a lid on it for fear of impacting the election?

Probably. So what? It's bloody good idea, if you ask me. That's politics.

We don't really have all the facts yet, but it looks like it'll see some sunlight soon.

It's an issue because, let's say the FBI truly did have Patreaus under investigation back in March. Evidently the congressional intelligence committee were not notified (there's a law that is supposed to notify congress). Also, the leaders in the executve branch (Prez, Sec of State, DoJ, etc) didn't know until recently... and here's the kicker... the CIA didn't know either.

Had the CIA known, THEY would've taken care of it a long time ago.

So... if that's hypothically true... do you think you want to "wait" a few months until after the election? Or, do you leave Patreaus at the fething head of the CIA whom could be vulnerable to the Honey trap scenario.

Right now, Dianne Fienstein is livid about this... which is surprising... she's hardly hawkish on anything.

Whilst the "honorable" *cough* Senator from California and I butt heads on many a subject, mostly her being a flaming hypocrite gun grabber who carries a pistol herself, she has been QUITE the hawk on the Senate Intelligence Committee, even challenging the White House directly on rumors of intelligence leaks from their end.

 Albatross wrote:
Of course someone in such a sensitive role should resign if they're found to be having an affair, particularly if they concealed it from vetting.

You know you made this up in your head right? Ok, Good.

Having an affair makes you vulnerable to blackmail, at the very least.

When you publicly admit to it, it kind of makes you impervious to black mail.

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Of course someone in such a sensitive role should resign if they're found to be having an affair, particularly if they concealed it from vetting. How is this even a conversation? Having an affair makes you vulnerable to blackmail, at the very least.

Put your "/tinfoil" on...

It's the timing that's awkward (right after the election).

So... did someone in the Administration (not necessarily Obama or Clinton) knew about this and decided to put a lid on it for fear of impacting the election?

Probably. So what? It's bloody good idea, if you ask me. That's politics.

We don't really have all the facts yet, but it looks like it'll see some sunlight soon.

It's an issue because, let's say the FBI truly did have Patreaus under investigation back in March. Evidently the congressional intelligence committee were not notified (there's a law that is supposed to notify congress). Also, the leaders in the executve branch (Prez, Sec of State, DoJ, etc) didn't know until recently... and here's the kicker... the CIA didn't know either.

Had the CIA known, THEY would've taken care of it a long time ago.

So... if that's hypothically true... do you think you want to "wait" a few months until after the election? Or, do you leave Patreaus at the fething head of the CIA whom could be vulnerable to the Honey trap scenario.

Right now, Dianne Fienstein is livid about this... which is surprising... she's hardly hawkish on anything.

Yes, the investigation started some months ago.

HOWEVER, it was NOT an investigation of Petraus. It was an investigation of threatening emails from Broadwell to Jill Kelly. The reason it took so long was that the FBI wasn't even sure if they could actually do anything about them, that it wasn't technically illegal. Eventually, because of the insistence of one agent (who is now being investigated for inappropriate behavior in relation to the case) they ended up looking through the account Broadwell used to send the harassing emails. This was months after the investigation first started. They then found evidence of messages from Patreaus, and thought that the account might have been hacked. As such, they went to Patreaus, and interviewed him. Remember, this was still not an investigation into Patreaus at that time, and they determined that there were no security breaches and no charges would be brought. Then, that same somewhat obsessed FBI agent went to a Republican congressman, and told Eric Cantor (Republican Majority Leader). This was the very end of October. Heres the timeline:

Oct. 27, 2012 — House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., gets a call from an FBI employee notifying him of the affair. Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., arranges the call after receiving a tip from another FBI official.

The week of Oct. 29, 2012 — Petraeus and Broadwell are both interviewed for a second time by the FBI. By this point, both have acknowledged the affair to the FBI.

Oct. 31, 2012 — Cantor's chief of staff calls the FBI chief of staff to inform him of the call.

Tuesday, Nov. 6 — As Americans cast their ballots on Election Day, the Justice Department informs Director of National Intelligence James Clapper of the investigation. Clapper calls Petraeus and urges him to resign.

Wednesday, Nov. 7 — The White House is first notified about the affair involving Petraeus. The retired general turns 60.

Thursday, Nov. 8 — President Barack Obama, having returned from Chicago, is told of the affair. Petraeus meets with Obama at the White House and asks to resign.

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.

This is purely a personal domestic deal between all of these people, with lots of farkups all around. There isn't some grand conspiracy to keep him from testifying about Bengazhi, nor even a minor conspiracy to keep things quiet before the Election (and he's a republican darling, so I really don't see how it would have reflected badly on Obama of all people anyway). The Congressional oversight committiees might have a better argument, as they probably should have been informed about everything at least before it all went public (there were a few days there), and that will all shake out (FBI protocols examined and everything), but that's how these things go, and maybe they'll be better next time.

 whembly wrote:
Oh... okay...

Shall I worship the Democrats like you do? 'kay... where's the mess hall sir?

There's a vast area between worshipping the Democrats and reading articles that refer to Barack Hussein Obama II.


Seriously, you have a Che avatar right now because you believed websites that weren't just wrong, but were making gak up to pretend Romney was actually in front, and all the polling aggregators had some kind of left wing agenda. At some point you've just got to realise those people are posting deceitful nonsense and when you repeat it it's making you sound ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Please explain how someone investigating you makes you unable to complete your job. Edit : Do you turn into a herald of Tzeentch, riding around on a disk causing chaos? No, of course not.

Whats done is done. The guy resigned. I just wish that 'banging bunny boilers' was not something people resigned over today.

When you head an organistion your place is more than just signing funding documents and planning strategic objectives. You are the most important person in setting the culture for that organisation. In the CIA, where maintaining a professional life and avoiding anything that'd compromise your professional work is not just desirable but essential, then you can't have a Director who fails that standard.

It'd be different if it was the Director of Education, or the CEO of some company. But this is the CIA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... if that's hypothically true... do you think you want to "wait" a few months until after the election? Or, do you leave Patreaus at the fething head of the CIA whom could be vulnerable to the Honey trap scenario.

But remaining in the job doesn't mean business goes on as normal. It means everyone sits down, agrees that after the election you'll give a statement about what you did, resign and walk away. In the meantime you don't carry on doing everything you were doing before, instead you step back from day to day operational planning (deputy director(s) step up to take on those responsbilities) and you being succession planning.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Oh... okay...

Shall I worship the Democrats like you do? 'kay... where's the mess hall sir?

There's a vast area between worshipping the Democrats and reading articles that refer to Barack Hussein Obama II.

Dude.... really?

Seriously, you have a Che avatar right now because you believed websites that weren't just wrong, but were making gak up to pretend Romney was actually in front, and all the polling aggregators had some kind of left wing agenda. At some point you've just got to realise those people are posting deceitful nonsense and when you repeat it it's making you sound ridiculous.

Right. I'm always wrong

At least I own up to my wager... so, there is that.

 whembly wrote:
So... if that's hypothically true... do you think you want to "wait" a few months until after the election? Or, do you leave Patreaus at the fething head of the CIA whom could be vulnerable to the Honey trap scenario.

But remaining in the job doesn't mean business goes on as normal. It means everyone sits down, agrees that after the election you'll give a statement about what you did, resign and walk away. In the meantime you don't carry on doing everything you were doing before, instead you step back from day to day operational planning (deputy director(s) step up to take on those responsbilities) and you being succession planning.

 whembly wrote:
Dude.... really?

Yeah. I mean, you posted an article talking about Barack Hussein Obama II, and people said maybe don't read that kind of stuff, and you replied by saying 'ok, shall I worship the Democrats like you do'.

I was pointing there's a huge difference between those two positions.

Right. I'm always wrong

No, of course not. But you'll always be wrong when you take your information from websites that are there to make political attacks first, and provide accurate information second.

At least I own up to my wager... so, there is that.

And props to you for it.

Right... so, is that what happened?

Maybe, maybe not. Point is that there are other explanations that exist, enough that speculation about wild conspiracies don't really make a lot of sense.

I mean, if there's a story here, then when that breaks we'll see it.

Me think you need to read up on the history of the CIA some more. I can assure you, that had the CIA upper management knew that he as under investigation, then he'd be long gone.

I've actually read a fair bit about the CIA, thanks.

What I want to know is:
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON OVER THERE??? How Florida is a socialite involved in Washington and with a high end general...in Afghanistan?

We're through the looking glass people, and have stumbled across some dark, strange world. All I have to say is...pics or it didn't happen!

Oh it gets better Frazz. She (Jill Kelley) called the cops and claimed reporters couldn't be on her lawn because she's a diplomat. Because South Korea made her an honorary General Consul.
This whole thing has turned flying rodent gak crazy in a day, and I'm loving it.

 AustonT wrote:
Oh it gets better Frazz. She (Jill Kelley) called the cops and claimed reporters couldn't be on her lawn because she's a diplomat. Because South Korea made her an honorary General Consul.
This whole thing has turned flying rodent gak crazy in a day, and I'm loving it.

I'm guessing he met her when he was based in Florida. I'm also guessing there's a whole sick world here of "socialites" and other crap. At least the 'scenery" is easier on the eyes, and not like other scandals that just leave you scratching your head.

If you're going to put your who-who-dilly in someone's bazinga, don't have a fething biographer, doing let that bazinga BE your fething biographer, and then don't fething email people about it.

fething amateur.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Oh it gets better Frazz. She (Jill Kelley) called the cops and claimed reporters couldn't be on her lawn because she's a diplomat. Because South Korea made her an honorary General Consul.
This whole thing has turned flying rodent gak crazy in a day, and I'm loving it.

I'm guessing he met her when he was based in Florida. I'm also guessing there's a whole sick world here of "socialites" and other crap. At least the 'scenery" is easier on the eyes, and not like other scandals that just leave you scratching your head.

She's involved in CentCom somehow.

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Oh it gets better Frazz. She (Jill Kelley) called the cops and claimed reporters couldn't be on her lawn because she's a diplomat. Because South Korea made her an honorary General Consul.
This whole thing has turned flying rodent gak crazy in a day, and I'm loving it.

I'm guessing he met her when he was based in Florida. I'm also guessing there's a whole sick world here of "socialites" and other crap. At least the 'scenery" is easier on the eyes, and not like other scandals that just leave you scratching your head.

She's involved in CentCom somehow.

Yep

 AustonT wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Of course someone in such a sensitive role should resign if they're found to be having an affair, particularly if they concealed it from vetting.

You know you made this up in your head right? Ok, Good.

Calm down dear, I was speaking hypothetically. There are some people in this thread saying that having an affair isn't big deal - I'm just pointing out why it could be a big deal for a man in his position. Even more so if (IF! KEY WORD!) he had lied about it to his employers.

Apparently they found a 'trove' of classified documents in Broadwell's home that she removed from secure facilities without authorization or permission. It would seem that removing classified documents without permission is frowned upon, and she is looking at possible charges.

Article

Well... David Petraeus has agreed to testify before Congressional committees. Anyone seen any news when that'll be?

Maybe he'll come clean as he's now a civvie? (for all practical purpose).

Whembly, do you think this will be bigger than Benghazigate?

 Easy E wrote:
Whembly, do you think this will be bigger than Benghazigate?

Depends...

If the FBI and upper administration folks knew about this earlier this year, and buried it because of the election season, then yea, that's kinda bad.

But, if the timing is coincidential... meaning, they confirmed this recently... then no.

I'd still think Bengahzigate is a major clusterfeth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More info from milblogger:

"I don't have any reason to think that there are any national security issues at stake in what has transpired." - referring to the Petraeus affair scandal, Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader (and either a liar or completely absent of rationale thought)

General Petraeus will now testify to the House and the Senate Intel Committees. However, there is much concern over whether the administration was using knowledge of his affair(s?) to control the narrative coming out of the Benghazi tragedy:

...Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day [edit note: September 14th] that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed "wedded" to the administration's narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control. The briefing appeared to conflict with one from the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center a day earlier in which officials said the intelligence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack...

Charles Krauthammer isn't pulling any punches here (and he shouldn't):

KRAUTHAMMER: Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line to quote Bill, everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed. I mean, can you imagine what it’s like to be on that pressure and to think it didn’t distort or at least in some way unconsciously influence his testimony? That’s hard to believe.

We may or may not hear about what GEN (ret) Petraeus has to say as it is private and with the Intel Committees. He testifies with the Senate committee on Friday.

Update: I should add that, for a man who had a long career as a combat Soldier, and with our dead heroes in Benghazi and wounded ones still recovering and embassies and operatives in the worst possible places trying desperately to protect themselves (and you here at home) right this very second, his duty is to those people. At the very least, he owes them that. Testifying truthfully and comprehensively is the only option.

The more I read and listen to the stories about this, the more it sound slike Tabloid garbage disguised as real news.

This is just getting weirder and weirder...

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that "Al Qaeda involvement" was suspected -- but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who spoke to reporters after Petraeus testified before the House Intelligence Committee, indicated he and other lawmakers still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the attack.

"No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/petraeus-to-testify-knew-libya-was-terrorism-from-start-source-says/#ixzz2COwMDU7I

Patraeus is testifying in front of the Senate Intelliegence committee soon.

ABC news did a quick Google Picture search for a picture of the book involved in the scandal that they could use in their story.

Nobody noticed the photoshop until it aired...

 d-usa wrote:
ABC news did a quick Google Picture search for a picture of the book involved in the scandal that they could use in their story.

Nobody noticed the photoshop until it aired...

That makes me soooo happy.