so far the only thing I have seen that hasn't been covered up is when the photogs are assigned to take pictures of O with his shirt off while in hawaii or martha's vinyard
Printable View
so far the only thing I have seen that hasn't been covered up is when the photogs are assigned to take pictures of O with his shirt off while in hawaii or martha's vinyard
FBI Suppressed Petraeus Scandal to Protect President
Sunday, 11 Nov 2012 09:25 PM By Ronald Kessler
Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — FBI agents investigating CIA Director David Petraeus's affair were shocked when told by bureau officials that despite the national security implications, no action would be taken on their findings until after the presidential election: Only then would President Obama ask for Petraeus’ resignation.
The White House claims President Obama and his national security advisors were first informed of the Petraeus' affair on Thursday, two days after the election.
But the official timeline strains credulity. Senior FBI officials suppressed disclosure of the highly sensitive case, apparently to avoid embarrassment to Obama during his re-election campaign.
Alert: Hurricane Proves You Need Emergency Radio, Save $25
On Oct. 10, I was contacted by a longtime FBI source who told me that a bureau investigation had uncovered Petraeus’ affair with a journalist and that it could potentially jeopardize national security.
The veteran agent related to me that FBI agents assigned to the case were outraged by what were they were told by senior officials: The FBI was going to hold in limbo their findings until after the election.
“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source told me. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”
My source said the FBI had been investigating the matter since last spring and the probe was considered among the most sensitive investigations the bureau was handling.
Both FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and the Justice Department were aware of the investigation, according to my source. The source did not specifically know whether Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder or FBI Director Mueller had given the order to delay taking action until after the election.
However, Mueller meets at least once a week with the president and routinely informs him of highly sensitive investigations and threats. An FBI investigation of the CIA director should have been at the top of that list.
In fact, it would have been a scandal if the FBI had not informed the president or the attorney general of an investigation of the CIA director.
Last Friday, the White House announced that Petraeus had resigned over an extramarital affair. At the time, I was completing my own investigation into the matter based on what my source had told me.
On the same day, my report for Newsmax, "FBI Investigation Led to Petraeus Resignation," revealed for the the first time that an an FBI investigation of Petraeus' emails had triggered his resignation.
Since then, the White House has claimed that the president was surprised when told of the FBI investigation two days after the election.
If the president genuinely did not know about the probe, it would constitute malfeasance by the White House. But my FBI sources doubt the order to suppress the probe’s findings until after the election — while taking a chance with the nation’s security — was made by the bureau.
For my recently published book, “The Secrets of the FBI,” FBI Director Mueller gave me unprecedented access to the bureau, including to agents who told me normally classified details of how FBI agents break into homes and offices to plant bugging devices in terrorist, espionage, Mafia, and political corruption cases.
In my opinion, Mueller is a man of impeccable integrity. He would not have acquiesced to delaying action on the bureau’s findings unless ordered to do so by the attorney general or by the president.
Since this was not a criminal matter, Mueller may have justified his decision by saying it is up to the government agency who employs the individual or the White House to take action. But the decision to delay action on the Petraeus case — when the fact that he had placed himself in a compromising position was known by the FBI for months — clearly created a security risk.
As FBI agents and CIA officers tell me, such a delay could have meant that foreign intelligence service officers or criminals who may have learned of the affair could have blackmailed Petraeus into giving up the country’s most sensitive secrets. Given his position, those secrets would have included penetrations of Russian communications, bugging of foreign embassies, identities of assets risking their lives to give the U.S. valuable information on terrorists, and identities of terrorists who are about to be killed by drones.
My source told me that the investigation into Petraeus’ affair began when FBI agents mistook a reference in one of his emails to “under the desk” to mean corruption, as in payments under the table.
While the source’s information was correct, news reports later said the broader FBI investigation began last spring when Paula Broadwell, with whom Petraeus was allegedly having an affair, allegedly began sending threatening emails to another woman she viewed as a potential threat to her relationship with Petraeus.
It turned out that “under the desk” was a reference to having sex under the desk with Petraeus, who is married.
Broadwell, who is married to a radiologist, was “embedded” with Petraeus while writing a book about him when he was stationed in Kabul. A triathlete, she has degrees from West Point and Harvard and holds the rank of major in the Army Reserve. She has not commented on her role in Petraeus’ resignation.
Michael Kortan, the FBI's assistant director for public affairs, had no immediate comment.
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/pe...n=widgetphase1
will he blames this on bush?:headshake who will be thrown under the bus this time....:afraid:...I know......the dog ate the report!
Senate Intelligence chair: No link between Petraeus resignation and Benghazi
11:47 AM 11/11/2012
In an appearance on this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein addressed questions surrounding David Petraeus’ resignation as CIA director on Friday.
Feinstein first ruled out any link between his resignation and September’s tragedy in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. “On the events in Benghazi and his resignation, absolutely not,” Feinstein said. “And I think if you really think this thing out everybody will come to that same conclusion.”
Feinstein outlined how the upcoming hearing into the Benghazi tragedy will take place, including who the witnesses will be. “With respect to calling Director Petraeus, or former director Petraeus before the committee, that will be a committee decision,” she continued. “The hearing will begin with the [director of national intelligence] Jim Clapper and Mike Morrell, who is now acting director of the CIA and Matt Olsen of the counterterrorism center.”
As for the prospects of Petraeus still appearing before her committee, she didn’t rule it out. “We may well, and we may well ask,” Feinstein said when asked about the need for Petraeus to appear before the committee. “That’s up to committee. I think we need to have this first hearing, which is the way they wanted to set it up, then the committee will make the decision.”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/se...#ixzz2C7g2r2Sc
Feinstein: I’ll subpoena CIA about Petraeus trip to Libya after Benghazi attack
posted at 8:51 am on November 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
One piece of information that got lost the last few days of sex scandals is the news that David Petraeus personally traveled to Libya after the Benghazi attack — and apparently filed a “trip report” covering his own findings. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee probing the Benghazi terrorist attack, wants either the report or Petraeus to testify to its contents. So far, though, the CIA and the White House have refused to provide it — and yesterday, Feinstein threatened that subpoenas may be forthcoming if the stonewalling continues: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/di...enghazi-video/ ( video at link )
This seems more than passingly curious. Why wouldn’t the CIA share the trip report with Feinstein? First of all, the Congressional intelligence committees in both chambers are entitled to see it as part of their oversight responsibilities over the agency, especially given the fact that the report comes after a terrorist attack that Congress has an obvious interest in investigating. On top of that, Feinstein and the Senate committee are arguably a more friendly venue than the House committees looking into the attack.Quote:
“In a Sunday interview with Fox News, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein dismissed the possibility that CIA director David Petraeus’ resignation is connected to the September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. But she is not will to dismiss Petraeus’ involvement in the Libya incident.
On MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on Monday, Feinstein suggested that Petraeus made an unpublicized visit to Libya after the Sept. 11 attack. The California Democratic senator accused the Obama intelligence community of withholding a report about the trip and threatened a subpoena if the White House continued to resist her committee’s inquiries.
“The premise is not necessarily an investigation,” Feinstein said, speaking of an investigation into Petraeus. “The premise is to see exactly what happened. I believe that Director Petraeus made a trip to the region, shortly before this became public. I believe that there is a trip report. We have asked to see the trip report. One person tells me he has read it, and then we tried to get it and they tell me it hasn’t been done. That’s unacceptable. We are entitled to this trip report, and if we have to go to the floor of the Senate on a subpoena, we will do just that.”
Host Andrea Mitchell asked Feinstein for clarification, and Feinstein explained that trip would include “relevant information.”
“Yes,” she replied. “For the very reason that it may have some very relevant information to what happened in Benghazi.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/di...#ixzz2C7fSo5Z7
This lack of openness, coming on the heels of the revelations of Petraeus’ affair and his resignation, will only raise more questions about why Petraeus is no longer testifying, and why he was so quick to get out of the way. When a Democratic Senator has to go on MSNBC to threaten a Democratic administration with a subpoena, well …. it should raise a few eyebrows.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/1...nghazi-attack/
C o v e r u p
Jay Carney: It’s a ‘simple fact’ the White House wasn’t informed about the Petraeus mess until the day after the election
By Doug Powers • November 13, 2012 10:55 PM
Semi-hypothetical scenario: You’re the US president during a heated election race, and the director of the intelligence agency investigating a terrorist attack in a foreign country that killed an ambassador and three others is found to have been carrying on an affair. That affair involves an email trail leading to other people which could result in nasty national security implications and carry with it fatal political consequences. Wouldn’t you be pissed if you weren’t told about it?
According to Jay Carney, nobody at the White House was aware of the Petraeus investigation until last Wednesday because hey, that’s protocol: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...fter-election/
Quote:
The White House insisted Tuesday that it was not aware of the David Petraeus scandal until last Wednesday, blaming FBI “protocols” for not being informed earlier.
Press Secretary Jay Carney said President Obama was “surprised” when he learned last Thursday that Petraeus had carried on an extramarital affair. While the FBI had at that point already been investigating for months, Carney said “protocols” at the agency apparently kept them from notifying Congress and other agencies in the Executive Branch.
In the latest shoe to drop, the FBI on Sunday forwarded to the Pentagon a case involving thousands of “potentially inappropriate” emails between one of the women linked to the scandal and Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
The White House did not know about any of this, Carney said.
“It is simply a fact that the White House was not aware of the situation regarding General Petraeus until Wednesday and the situation regarding General Allen until Friday,” Carney said.
Convenient timing is a hallmark of this administration — but at least Carney didn’t blame the Petraeus/Broadwell affair on the fact that the film Same Time, Next Year had stirred up anti-marital fidelity sentiment in the corridors of power in DC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_Ti...ear_%28film%29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q50af...layer_embedded
It’s not like at least one of Obama’s cabinet members weren’t aware: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...fter-election/Quote:
Attorney General Eric Holder, however, was looped in on the Petraeus situation in late summer, Fox News has learned. Some lawmakers say Holder should have notified the White House — and certainly should have notified Congress — but others have pointed to FBI “protocol” to argue that was not warranted.
According to one source, it is long-standing FBI policy for the FBI not to brief Congress or the White House in the middle of a criminal probe that does not involve a security threat.
Still, the timing of the notification was curious. The Justice Department reportedly told Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about the probe on Election Day. Clapper told the White House the following day, and Obama learned the day after that, according to administration officials.
If Holder kept this big news to himself, President Obama isn’t too upset about it, because Holder’s been asked to stick around for the second term. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...8lAh00dkcJNTZN
Michael Mukasey, Holder’s predecessor under George W. Bush, on CNN: http://www.hapblog.com/2012/11/watch...at-nobody.html
Quote:
“I think there was a protocol in place, about who could talk to the White House, the Attorney General was definitely one of the two people who could under any circumstance, and the deputy Attorney General was another,” said the man who himself served as Attorney General under George W. Bush.
“You don’t have to wait until an investigation is over and concluded before it has implications for national security as this one did. To have a C.I.A. director under investigation, and knowing about it, is something that I think in and of itself, would have made it necessary to notify the White House, i.e. the President.”
Mukasey was asked if he believed nobody in the White House knew about the Petraeus investigation before last Wednesday: “One word answer: No”:
Closing note: Charles Krauthammer thinks the White House held Petraeus’s affair over his head for favorable testimony on Benghazi. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-favorable-tes
**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/13...fact-petraeus/
when the head of any corporation has no idea what is going on around him, then he is ineffectual and thus is not necessary for the good of that company. is it possible that the federal government has a communications problem or is it no one wants to know anything negative and thus all negativity is swept under that proverbial rug ....which has so much under it, it's just a matter of time before someone trips on that rug and spills everything. My question is: who is controlling the white house and the federal government? It can't be O (I see nothing, I hear nothing...I know nothing)
On one hand ....
However .... that same White house rep who told us that they knew nothing about situation in Bengazi ... even while watching Real Time footage of the assault on the consulate .... says ....Quote:
However, Mueller meets at least once a week with the president and routinely informs him of highly sensitive investigations and threats. An FBI investigation of the CIA director should have been at the top of that list.
In fact, it would have been a scandal if the FBI had not informed the president or the attorney general of an investigation of the CIA director.
Who do we believe ?? hmmmm ...Quote:
The White House insisted Tuesday that it was not aware of the David Petraeus scandal until last Wednesday, blaming FBI “protocols” for not being informed earlier.
Press Secretary Jay Carney said President Obama was “surprised” when he learned last Thursday that Petraeus had carried on an extramarital affair. While the FBI had at that point already been investigating for months, Carney said “protocols” at the agency apparently kept them from notifying Congress and other agencies in the Executive Branch.
Charles Krauthammer: White House ‘Held Affair Over Petraeus’s Head’ – “The Sword Was Lowered on Election Day”
November, 13, 2012 — nicedeb
While many pundits on the right have been whispering that blackmail may have been involved in the Petraeus scandal, Charles Krauthammer, Tuesday on Fox News’s Special Report didn’t mince words, saying what everyone with working brain cells is thinking: “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,” he said.
Transcript via Newsbusters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz2C9eNQEV3 ( video availble at source )
Fox News is also reporting that Obama will be holding a press conference tomorrow afternoon to answer questions about Benghazi, and oooooh-wee! He’ll be taking questions from the media, woot! woot! We’re really gonna get to the bottom of this, now, eh? http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2012/1...-est-wednesdayQuote:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.
And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?
Of course it will be a pathetic farce – the White House feels like they have all their ducks in a row, now, I’m guessing. They’ve come up with a story, (and it doesn’t even have to be a plausible story – it can be absurd on its face) – and they know their media lapdogs will lap it up. (See [u]Your Guide To Understanding the Media for the Next Four Years[/u[ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...ext-Four-Years for further edification.)
I don’t think I have the stomach to watch it.
https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/1...-election-day/
comments
I think Krauthammer is exactly right on this. Petraeus thought that he would save his job and reputation once the FBI seemed to conclude that nothing criminal had transpired. But the FBI alone would not have been able to make guarantees that nothing would happen to him. “Someone” had to make assurances to him that they would try and keep the lid on everything and he had nothing to worry about. He towed the company line, when he briefed on 9-12 and attributed the violence to the video. His expiration date and usefulness came and went on the evening of 6 November ’12.
11/13/2012
New Military Sex Scandal!!!!1! So Let’s Forget About the Important Questions
Patterico @ 7:27 am
Ay yai yai: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,267874.story
I fear we are losing sight of the main issues: what can Petraeus tell us about Benghazi? He traveled there personally after the attack and filed a report. Even Dianne Feinstein seems interested. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/1...nghazi-attack/Quote:
The sex scandal that led to CIA Director David Petraeus’ downfall widened Tuesday with word the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is under investigation for thousands of alleged “inappropriate communications” with another woman involved in the case.
Even as the FBI prepared a timeline for Congress about the investigation that brought to light Petraeus’ extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that the Pentagon had begun an internal investigation into emails from Gen. John Allen to a Florida woman involved in the case.
Allen succeeded Petraeus as the top American commander in Afghanistan in July 2011, and his nomination to become the next commander of U.S. European Command and the commander of NATO forces in Europe has now been put on hold, as the scandal seemed certain to ensnare another acclaimed military figure.
And what did Obama know about his affair? Seems like the FBI has known this stuff for quite a while. Obama didn’t??
Plus, new questions are emerging all the time: how did Broadwell seem to know the attack related to a secret prison? http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/1...enghazi-annex/
What did Obama know about that? Was he conducting enhanced interrogation at secret prisons?
Hey, everything will be OK once we have John Kerry at Defense and Susan Rice at State. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/1...ice-for-state/
P.S. Everyone knows that people with access to our most classified information can’t be involved in these affairs. It makes them subject to blackmail and puts our national security at risk.
Unless, of course, they are a Democrat president, in which case they can also obstruct justice and commit perjury, and come out of it a loved national figure who can help another Democrat win re-election.
http://patterico.com/2012/11/13/new-...ant-questions/
Daily Beast/Newsweek Offers 'Seven Tips for a Top-Secret Affair'
By Ken Shepherd | November 13, 2012 | 17:40
The shocking revelation of CIA Director David Petraeus's adultery has rocked Washington and has thrilled the media, perhaps a little too much.
Forget the pain that adultery causes and which Holly Petraeus must be feeling right now. For the Daily Beast/Newsweek's Lizzie Crocker, the whole situation is the perfect news peg to offer aspiring philanderers lessons they can learn from the ex-CIA chief's "rookie mistakes."
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default...rwraps_500.jpgQuote:
"From staying offline to leaving colleagues alone, [here's] our guide to keeping a lover under wraps," oozed the subheader to "Rules David Petraeus Broke: Seven Tips for a Top-Secret Affair."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...-secret-affair
They forgot the important thing of belonging to the right political party.
..
That's true. If you have that all-magical "D" behind your name, you are protected by the make believe media, no matter what you do (and that includes law-breaking)...
..
Since our host did not care to summarize, here are the 7 Tips. Seem like mostly common sense. That last one might be tough since I venture a guess that the majority of affairs start at work. But could be wrong.
Quote:
1. Don’t write anything in an email that you hope to keep private.
2. Communicate furtively on the phone.
3. Develop a cheating “strategy” and make it your new religion.
4. Make time for cheating.
5. Perfect your poker face.
6. Always pay with cash.
7. Don’t fool around with someone at work
..
It would be more timely to publish "Seven Tips for a Foreign Policy Cover-Up" (1. Throw the military under the bus to create a distraction, etc...)
..
Remember: Vera Baker
..
Or how about one stand alone tip...If you don't do it, it won't be a problem.
(also useful in avoiding unwanted pregnancies, its a two for one)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...#ixzz2CCURfJbP