White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com...



FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11.

The CIA ‘s reporting to Congress included a claim that protests over a YouTube video played a role in the attacks, thus allowing Obama to initially discount the possibility that the U.S. had suffered another terrorist attack just before the election.

In contrast, based on real time video and reports, the State Department was reporting that the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was terrorist-related. The State Department reported that there were no protests at the consulate.

Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com...



Is this even legal?

So the White house knew yet held off until after the election?




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Makes you wonder what other eggs they're sitting on.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by subjectzero
Makes you wonder what other eggs they're sitting on.


Yes,
Plus a question I have been wondering myself,
Who authorized the FBI to monitor the e-mail of the Director of the CIA?
www.breitbart.com...


First question: How did that initial email come to light?

Second question: Who authorized the Bureau to pore over all his email communication? We are talking, after all, about the Director of the CIA. That cannot have been a decision made by a junior staffer at DOJ. I doubt that even the Director of the FBI could authorize the surveillance of a critical member of America's national security team.

Is this a decision Eric Holder can make? Or, does it come under the exclusive purview of the White House?

Third question: Who were the agents given access to Petraeus' communications? Presumably, they read a lot of emails that weren't related to the past affair and likely contained top secret and classified information. What security clearance did these agents have?
edit on 033030p://bSaturday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 

Wouldn't that have to come straight from the White House?

What I want to say would probably get me thrown out on my ear. Basically, that the Socialists have the reins and they've spent the last four years "Getting to know you. Getting to know all about you" and the system that runs and protects this country.

Now they've been reelected and there's no stopping them.

Think about it. Why did Obama tell Putin he'd have more flexibility after the election? Exactly what is he planning to do?

Petraeus is probably one of many surprises. Like Cleopatra in the rug.
edit on 11/10/2012 by subjectzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by subjectzero
 


Yes, some of the research I have done on line certainly points to the enemy within the agencies.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
This, to me, looks like they want to shut the general up before he blabs what he knows.

I find it highly irregular that he would not be forced to testify just because he resigned. Another example of our justice system being hijacked in order to protect the backsides of the scumbags higher up on the food chain.

If everybody in government had to resign for having extramarital dalliances, the whole place would be emptied out.

It should not be surprising that this blackmailing did not take place until after the election....and, like so many other things this administration has done that is illegal and immoral, it'll be swept under the rug, and shiny objects and pretty people will be dangled in front of the sheeple to help them to forget.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
There's definitley something more to his resignation than getting dome nookie on the side, it all seems to be pointing to friction between him and Obama which came to a head over Benghazi.

Also, just because he's resigned from the post, doesn't mean he can't be called to testify infront of the House/Senate Intelligence Comittees.

Some would say that it is easier to subpoena a private citizen then the D/CIA.

Interesting times ahead.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Obama cover-up claim over CIA chief's affair: Was the relationship discovered by FBI months ago, but hushed up due to election?

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... zz2Bsw2oQ1m



Frances Townsend, a former senior US government security official and now a member of the CIA Advisory Committee, said: ‘Whenever the FBI opens an investigation of a senior official they have to make notification of that, especially if there is an intelligence concern. It is hard to believe the White House did not know about this prior to the election.’




The source added: ‘This could be another Watergate situation where it is not the event that brings down the president but the cover-up.’

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... zz2BswRax8H




He never knows anything, Now how many times have I heard that one?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Posting this because of a few comments that made me wonder,

The Petraeus Espionage File
pjmedia.com...




JJA: Jeez, nobody knows anything any more! (coughing again, he’d probably lit up a Camel). It’s routine. The FBI always monitors the top levels of CIA, especially the director, any time there is reason for them to worry about a national security counterintelligence matter. Everybody in the business knows that. And all they need to open one of those investigations is a complaint, or a tip, from anybody. You can’t imagine how many hours are devoted to checking out anonymous leads. I can give you lots of recent stories about promotions and nominations being held up because some fabulist sent a little whisper across the transom of an inspector general’s office…

ML: And the CIA guys know that? Petraeus knew that?

JJA: Of course. And he also knew what any moderate geek knows, namely that gmail is an open book. Any skilled nerd can read most anybody’s emails. We don’t ever use email here.

ML: You’ve got computers?

JJA: Indeed. What do you think that “cloud” thing is all about anyway? We control it.

ML: I should have known! So Petraeus knew that people were reading, or at least could read, all his passionate emails to his lover.

JJA: Yes. And he knew enough about such matters to realize that when the counterintel people became aware of the affair, the bureau would instantly worry that he could be blackmailed. So they would go back through all his emails, and all hers as well, to everyone.


We are talking about a man who was at the top of his game,
Should we really believe he didn't know or care about who read his emails.

And if he did want them read, why?
edit on 093030p://bSunday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Posted this on another topic as well


One wouldn't think that two people with the credentials of Paula and Petraeus, could be this stupid,

Think about it, she is an expert in counterintelligence yet she openly sent love letters to Petraeus, you know they know they are being monitored.

Petraeus is the best and the brightest but he allows this to happen.

Yes, they allowed themselves to be exposed.

Not sure why.

And then there is their husband and wife, they all knew.
edit on 093030p://bSunday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   


Think about it, she is an expert in counterintelligence yet she openly sent love letters to Petraeus, you know they know they are being monitored.
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Makes you think, perhaps they weren't the authors of these emails......But because they were really having an affair, their "I didn't write those" excuses wouldn't hold water.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. TPTB aren't even trying anymore, they do the bare minumum and still get away with murder.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
As an entree into this thread please allow for a reprise from another thread posted quite recently. It up-dates the situation concisely as well as covering a lot of what could be germane to the topic at hand.


Originally posted by gmonundercover
For the "lowdown before the showdown" on Benghazi-Ghate! written by a well placed and highly regarded blogger whose sources are well grounded.
Look Here ---> washin gtonsblog.com

This is the most concise report I have seen to date giving links and sources that are complete and well documented. Well worth the effort.

Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Suddenly Resign … And Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?
EXCERPTS

The Deeper Questions Behind the Ambassador’s Murder … and the CIA Boss’ Sudden Resignation
While the GOP is attacking (and Dems defending) the Obama administration in connection with the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, there is a deeper story.
Sure, it is stunning that the State Department never requested backup or that people such as Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer allege that President Obama personally watched in real time the attacks as they occurred via video feeds from drones flying over the Benghazi consulate.
But these claims only can be assessed – and the whole confusing mess only makes sense – if the deeper underlying story is first exposed.



Many Syrian Terrorists Come from Libya
The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.
(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion. But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)
CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.
edit on 11-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell

youtu.be...




“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”




“The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus,” she stated, “is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”

she had said the military could have sent reinforcements.
www.israelnationalnews.com...
“They were requesting the – it’s called the C-in-C’s In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex.”
edit on 013030p://bSunday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 



No they don't try to hide it, they try to muddy the waters, they put out numerous press releases, all with a new twist.

Were are all the good reporters now days?
Hiding under their desk?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 

gmonundercoverm thanks for posting,

You notice in the video near the end how she uses the words, "WE"?

Isn't that telling?

and

How does she know this stuff?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
You all are acting like she was emailing him from her .gov address. Once she sent threatening emails to this other woman and she was identified I would think that all of her communications were being monitored.

Me think Petraeus had more than one side piece and Paula Broadwell figured it out. That or this other woman knew of the affair and was being threatened for that reason.

But I digress. How he could have been so foolish is a good question.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 

Good find .............

“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”


Her closing remarks were surely was not as 'impromptu' as one might think. Her comment is a deliberate plant coming as did at the very end of her talk: a sort of a mini-bomb shell actually. There are several others out there who have picked up on it right away (see below) and it will become a big issue I am quite sure.

BTW - I think the interlocutors comments were part of the "plant" as well - in other words the question itself and her answer were pre-programmed, so to speak.

WND EXCLUSIVE - Did Petraeus mistress reveal secret CIA prison? Paula Broadwell may have divulged new information on Benghazi scandal


TEL AVIV – Did Paula Broadwell, the alleged mistress of ex-CIA Director David Petraeus, reveal a secret CIA detention center in Benghazi during a public speech she gave last month?
Broadwell, a former counterterror operative, co-authored a bestselling biography of Petraeus, titled “All In.” She discussed the book during a keynote speech on Oct. 26 at a University of Denver alumni symposium. The speech is available in full on YouTube.
(See post above)
During a question-and-answer session, Broadwell was asked about this year’s Sept. 11 attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
She stated: “Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”
The existence of a U.S. prison or CIA detention center in Benghazi would be a new development in the debate surrounding the attacks there. The information does not appear to be publicly known.
An extensive WND search of news media coverage of the Benghazi attacks could find no mention of prisoners being held at the CIA annex.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor spoke to an FBI whistleblower two weeks ago who accused Petraeus of not only having an extramarital affair, but potentially jeopardizing the security of classified information.
During the same university speech, Broadwell may have also divulged information that Petraeus knew “within 24 hours” of CIA annex’s request for reinforcements, reported Israel National News.
“The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus,” she stated, “is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”
Earlier she had said the military could have sent reinforcements.
“They were requesting the – it’s called the C-in-C’s In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex.”
With additional research by Joshua Klein



edit on 11-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by cry93
 


A totally unsecured gmail account. We are talking about the HEAD of the CIA here not Kim Kardashian. This is totally not believable. Paula would be equally knowledgeable about these risks given her intellect and training.

Sorry TOTAL BS.... Not at all believable.

I can't believe any thinking person would fall for this for even a minute.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
meh

this was an affair

how much can you blackmail a guy about an affair ? happens every day

"give us the launch codes or we go to the press about you and your biographer"

lol

it's not like he was a reptilian pedophile



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by gmonundercover
 


The speech is 40 minutes. Any idea at what point she says these things.

This is huge.

Everyone should be watching this.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join