Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: FBI Suppressed Petraeus Scandal to Protect President

  1. #1

    FBI Suppressed Petraeus Scandal to Protect President

    FBI Suppressed Petraeus Scandal to Protect PresidentSunday, 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.

    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=widgetphase2

  2. #2
    Yeah, if I knew Petraeus was having an affair, I would have voted for Romney.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    Yeah, if I knew Petraeus was having an affair, I would have voted for Romney.
    You're not bright enough to vote for someone competent....

  4. #4
    Newsmax is a joke put on this world by neocons who think we should still be in Iraq. The idea that people vote for Romney because Petreaus, a Republican btw, had an affair is asinine like everything else in that rag.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    Yeah, if I knew Petraeus was having an affair, I would have voted for Romney.
    This sort of stuff bothers me, but not because it may or may not change votes. It bothers me because it is handled in such a way that makes it feel dirty. Petreaus had an affair. CIA directors are not supposed to be in a position where they are prone to blackmail. Once the information is known, his resignation must be asked for immediately, regardless of the timing.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,052
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    Yeah, if I knew Petraeus was having an affair, I would have voted for Romney.
    How do you not know that Obama didn't slip Patreaus a roofie and guided his d*ck into his biographer?

    Prove he didn't.


    Sent from my 8.6 acre property with 4 bedroom house with waterfront views and low utility costs because of the gas well on my property using fireworks...

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Newsmax is a joke put on this world by neocons who think we should still be in Iraq. The idea that people vote for Romney because Petreaus, a Republican btw, had an affair is asinine like everything else in that rag.
    The issue here is that Obama's handlers apparantly thought first about the election rather than national security.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    The issue here is that Obama's handlers apparantly thought first about the election rather than national security.
    Two questions.
    1. Did Obama himself order that the FBI hold back on this info until after the election?

    2. How does holding back this information from the public for 3 days actually jeopardize national security?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    Two questions.
    1. Did Obama himself order that the FBI hold back on this info until after the election?

    2. How does holding back this information from the public for 3 days actually jeopardize national security?
    1. Unclear. He did meet weekly with the FBI head, who one would presume would be aware of investigation. Did he withhold this information? Was he told by someone else to withhold the information?

    2. Apparently it may have been longer than 3 days that this was known. In any case, the question here is of priorities. Was the election put ahead of national security?

    Whether or not it may have had an effect on voters (perhaps it would not have), the question worth asking is did someone fear that it may have had an effect on the re-election chances and decide to withhold information until after the election? A very fair question in my opinion.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    1. Unclear. He did meet weekly with the FBI head, who one would presume would be aware of investigation. Did he withhold this information? Was he told by someone else to withhold the information?

    2. Apparently it may have been longer than 3 days that this was known. In any case, the question here is of priorities. Was the election put ahead of national security?

    Whether or not it may have had an effect on voters (perhaps it would not have), the question worth asking is did someone fear that it may have had an effect on the re-election chances and decide to withhold information until after the election? A very fair question in my opinion.
    1. The answer is you do not know.

    2. you have not answered how withholding this information compromised national security. Its a nice statement to make to express your outrage, but it is not necessarily true. Tell me specifically how national security was compromised.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    1. The answer is you do not know.

    2. you have not answered how withholding this information compromised national security. Its a nice statement to make to express your outrage, but it is not necessarily true. Tell me specifically how national security was compromised.
    Well for one the CIA Director could have been subject to blackmail. Also it is apparent that someone had access to classified emails without sufficient clearance.

    In any case, assuming Obama knew nothing of the investigation, why was it hidden from him? Why did this months long investigation break 2 days after the election? You claim mere coincidence. Is this what you are sticking with? You may end up correct in the end, but it is certainly worth discussing. Seems a little too tidy and convenient for me.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,052
    Arg! Sex!

    Arg!!



    Oh no!



    Ahhhhhhh!



    Nooooo!



    Someone got laid! National security!


    Sent from my 8.6 acre property with 4 bedroom house with waterfront views and low utility costs because of the gas well on my property using fireworks...

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,052
    Have you seen Dave's wife?

    Freaking nasty. The Biographer was a def step up.

    Good for him.


    Sent from my 8.6 acre property with 4 bedroom house with waterfront views and low utility costs because of the gas well on my property using fireworks...

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    Well for one the CIA Director could have been subject to blackmail. Also it is apparent that someone had access to classified emails without sufficient clearance.

    In any case, assuming Obama knew nothing of the investigation, why was it hidden from him? Why did this months long investigation break 2 days after the election? You claim mere coincidence. Is this what you are sticking with? You may end up correct in the end, but it is certainly worth discussing. Seems a little too tidy and convenient for me.
    What I am saying is that you and I have way too little information available to us to make any speculation.

    Perhaps there is blackmail but perhaps its coming from within the CIA from folks who were looking to get rid of Petraeus and Obama was kept out of the loop. See , I can play the speculation game too.

    Can you please explain to me how national security was compromised by withholding this info from the public after the election? Ive now asked you 3 times to explain this claim that you made.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    What I am saying is that you and I have way too little information available to us to make any speculation.

    Perhaps there is blackmail but perhaps its coming from within the CIA from folks who were looking to get rid of Petraeus and Obama was kept out of the loop. See , I can play the speculation game too.

    Can you please explain to me how national security was compromised by withholding this info from the public after the election? Ive now asked you 3 times to explain this claim that you made.

    I explained it to you already, doc. Twice.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    What I am saying is that you and I have way too little information available to us to make any speculation.

    Perhaps there is blackmail but perhaps its coming from within the CIA from folks who were looking to get rid of Petraeus and Obama was kept out of the loop. See , I can play the speculation game too.

    Can you please explain to me how national security was compromised by withholding this info from the public after the election? Ive now asked you 3 times to explain this claim that you made.
    Point is just soaring over your head... He could have been blackmailed with the affair at any point in time until he was removed from his position... If you can't comprehend that, I don't know what to tell you...

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,603
    Of course the lib morons here don't even get the crux of the matter

    Removing Petraeus as a credible person / entirely from the Libya proceedings is (D)'s goal

  18. #18
    420,000 people were added to the Food Stamps roll in the month of August. The largest monthly increase in history. When was this tidbit of info released? You guessed it, after the election.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    420,000 people were added to the Food Stamps roll in the month of August. The largest monthly increase in history. When was this tidbit of info released? You guessed it, after the election.
    Well do you know that Food Stamp Certification forms in NY also include Voter Registration forms in the package. Might as well sign em up for everything at once.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite View Post
    Point is just soaring over your head... He could have been blackmailed with the affair at any point in time until he was removed from his position... If you can't comprehend that, I don't know what to tell you...
    You are assuming that he wasnt already neutralized and stripped of all power. Just because this was only recentlymade public doesnt mean action wasnt already taken to prevent the blackmail you claim could have happenef

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us