Reply With Quote
this whole affair is better exposed, even serialized/dramatized on E! channel
Read my shirtless link. The "shirtless" guy was the FBI agent that Kelly knew and asked to investigate. He got ganked from the investigation early on.
This is quite possibly the best gossipy storm since BC's BJ at the WH.
this whole affair is better exposed, even serialized/dramatized on E! channel
Not that an affair has anything to really do with his resignation..but
Wow, it's a big deal if he got stripped of a star... you rarely see that happen. I guess you can pimp younger soldiers, you can screw up any number of times, but with money? Give me those stars and bars!
I've never heard of it happening. When was the last time?Wow, it's a big deal if he got stripped of a star... you rarely see that happen. I guess you can pimp younger soldiers, you can screw up any number of times, but with money? Give me those stars and bars!
Not that an affair has anything to really do with his resignation..but
FBI's abuse of the surveillance state is the real scandal needing investigation
the FBI investigation began when Jill Kelley - a Tampa socialite friendly with Petraeus (and apparently very friendly with Gen. John Allen, the four-star U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan) - received a half-dozen or so anonymous emails that she found vaguely threatening. She then informed a friend of hers who was an FBI agent, and a major FBI investigation was then launched that set out to determine the iden y of the anonymous emailer.
The emails Kelley received were, as the Daily Beast reports, quite banal and clearly not an event that warranted an FBI investigation:
"The emails that Jill Kelley showed an FBI friend near the start of last summer were not jealous lover warnings like 'stay away from my man', a knowledgeable source tells The Daily Beast. . . .
"'More like, 'Who do you think you are? . . .You parade around the base . . . You need to take it down a notch,'" according to the source, who was until recently at the highest levels of the intelligence community and prefers not to be identified by name.
"The source reports that the emails did make one reference to Gen. David Petraeus, but it was oblique and offered no manifest suggestion of a personal relationship or even that he was central to the sender's spite. . . .
"When the FBI friend showed the emails to the cyber squad in the Tampa field office, her fellow agents noted the absence of any overt threats.
"No, 'I'll kill you' or 'I'll burn your house down,'' the source says. 'It doesn't seem really that bad.'
"The squad was not even sure the case was worth pursuing, the source says.
"'What does this mean? There's no threat there. This is against the law?' the agents asked themselves by the source's account.
"At most the messages were harassing. The cyber squad had to consult the statute books in its effort to determine whether there was adequate legal cause to open a case.
"'It was a close call,' the source says.
"What tipped it may have been Kelley's friendship with the agent."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ance-state-fbi
When Will It Stop!
Gen. John Allen also helped Jill Kelley's sister during custody battle
Both Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen intervened in the same nasty child custody battle involving Natalie Khawam, the “psychologically unstable” twin sister of Jill Kelley, whose bombs claims of being threatened by Petraeus' lover led to the top spy’s resignation last week, the Post has learned.
Allen, the four-star general top commander in Afghanistan, was revealed last night to have exchanged thousands of pages of of emails with Kelley, who went to the feds after receiving threatening e-mails from Paula Broadwell, the married mistress of Petraeus.
A judge noted in the file that Khawam "has attached letters from Gen. David H. Petraeus averring to her ability to appropriately parent the child, and is prepared to present corroborating testimony at trial."
And in court do ents filed by Kelley's sister Natalie Khawam, she name-drops both Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- who both have ties to a Providence, RI, lawyer/Democratic fundraiser who loaned a whopping $300,000 to Khawam.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...2INC4smBMEYqUI
Widening Petraeus Scandal Reveals Human Race Has Been Having Sex For 200,000 Years
NOVEMBER 13, 2012
FBI officials say the Petraeus scandal has broadened, and that sexual activity may have occurred throughout all of human history.
WASHINGTON—Following the recent revelation that former CIA director David Petraeus conducted a protracted extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell, sources confirmed today that the far-reaching scandal has widened to reveal that mankind, otherwise known as the species sapiens, has been engaging in sexual intercourse for the past 200,000 years.
“While the situation appeared at first to be limited to this one sexual relationship between Gen. Petraeus and Ms. Broadwell, we see now that it is far more extensive than we had initially believed,” said an FBI official who spoke on a condition of anonymity due to the ongoing investigation. “Indeed, evidence shows Gen. Petraeus is, in fact, just one of literally billions of human beings who we now believe have on numerous occasions engaged in sexual intercourse over the last several hundred millennia.”
“No matter how far back we go, we just continue to find more and more corroborating proof of people having sex,” the official added. “There’s simply no end in sight.”
Officials were reportedly first alerted to the allegations after the discovery of thousands of do ents this week, including e-mails, letters, and photographs, which led them to believe that millions of other people beyond Gen. Petraeus have been having sex perhaps since the middle Paleolithic period, and continue to have sex today in various partnerships and in all 196 countries worldwide.
A further investigation into the matter then revealed that not only have people been frequently having sex throughout modern history, they have been doing so at least since the first precursors to modern humans gained the ability to walk upright, and that sexual intercourse is a natural biological function that may indeed by widespread and prevalent throughout all eras of the human race.
“The scope of this scandal is simply astonishing—there is currently enough evidence to implicate citizens from every part of the world, even dating back before the creation of modern international states,” said one source close to the investigation, adding that the FBI has collected millions of first-person accounts of people who have either had sex themselves or witnessed others performing sexual acts. “There is even thousands of hours of video evidence that cyber-security experts in D.C. and Langley have managed to find on the Internet.”
“The real question is, ‘Who knew about this? And for how long?’” the anonymous source added.
According to reports, a comprehensive global probe jointly conducted by the FBI and CIA also revealed that, in addition to Gen. Petraeus, others alleged to have had sex in the past include Leon Panetta, Condoleezza Rice, Ben Bernanke, George Stephanopolous, John Lennon, Charlotte Brontë, Jack Nicholson, William Shakespeare, Andre Agassi, Plato, Ulysses S. Grant, Queen Elizabeth II, Ted Avery of Dayton, OH, George Washington, Karen Avery of Dayton, OH, every past and present member of the band Chicago, Sir Isaac Newton, Bill Gates, Andie MacDowell, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, Vince Lombardi, and Adolf Hitler.
“A closer look at the evidence indicates that even the earliest primates from the Paleolithic era had engaged in acts of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Jacob Reynolds, a historian at the University of North Carolina. “We have even discovered lewd depictions engraved on stone tablets dating all the way back to 10,000 BC in what is now modern-day Turkey. But it is very possible that this controversy stretches back farther than any of our historical records.”
Reynolds confirmed that in addition to human beings, many well-known animals are also thought to have engaged in sexual activity, including millions of bears, sheep, goats, and even numerous fish and insect species.
Furthermore, sources indicated that sexual activity may extend all the way to the White House.
While the exact scope of the controversy is still unknown, sources said the FBI will continue looking into the matter until “everyone and everything involved in this matter is brought to light.”
At press time, officials estimated that roughly 15,000 human beings are having sex at this exact moment.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/13As the New York Times reports Tuesday morning that the Petraeus sex scandal has now spread and the Pentagon has initiated an investigation into top NATO commander in Afghanistan, US General John Allen, what is becoming increasingly clear—beyond all the seemingly bizarre twists of this unfolding drama and leaving aside the question about whether or not the private sexual lives of top officials are, in fact, worthy of the endless media blitz they receive—is that the FBI's ability to examine private email accounts during an investigation are having far-reaching, if not ironic, consequences.
David Petraeus ... submitted his resignation as director of the CIA citing an extramarital affair. Marine General John Allen, right, is now under investigation for alleged "inappropriate communications" with a woman involved in the Petraeus scandal. (Alex Wong / Getty Images) In this case, it seems that some of the military's most senior officers have been undone by some of the aggressive electronic policing measures that law enforcements officers in the US have argued were necessary to capture dangerous terrorist networks operating in the US and abroad in the post-9/11 world.
As the Associated Press reports:
The downfall of CIA Director David Petraeus demonstrates how easy it is for federal law enforcement agents to examine emails and computer records if they believe a crime was committed. With subpoenas and warrants, the FBI and other investigating agencies routinely gain access to electronic inboxes and information about email accounts offered by Google, Yahoo and other Internet providers.And as independent journalist Dave Lindorff points out:
"The government can't just wander through your emails just because they'd like to know what you're thinking or doing," said Stewart Baker, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security and now in private law practice.
"But if the government is investigating a crime, it has a lot of authority to review people's emails."
[...] What makes the epic collapse of this consummate political general’s career so exquisite is that it was the post-9-11 spying capabilities of the FBI that allowed its agents to slip unannounced into the email of the General’s paramour, Paula Broadwell (a name that could have been selected by Ian Fleming!), and possibly into the general’s own email too, there to find the evidence, allegedly in the form of X-rated letters, of a covert adulterous relationship underway."Technology has evolved in a way that makes the content of more communications available to law enforcement without judicial authorization, and at a very low level of su ion," Greg Nojeim, a senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology, explained to AP.
We now know that the FBI was alerted to this breach of decorum [...] and lack of judgement on the part of the head of the nation’s spooks, by a second woman, Jill Kelley, who was a volunteer military liaison and family friend of the Petraeus clan.
The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald notes that"What is most striking is how sweeping, probing and invasive the FBI's investigation then became, all without any evidence of any actual crime - or the need for any search warrant." And continues:
This is a surveillance state run amok. It also highlights how any remnants of internet anonymity have been all but obliterated by the union between the state and technology companies.
But, as unwarranted and invasive as this all is, there is some sweet justice in having the stars of America's national security state destroyed by the very surveillance system which they implemented and over which they preside. As Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation put it this morning: "Who knew the key to stopping the Surveillance State was to just wait until it got so big that it ate itself?"
It is usually the case that abuses of state power become a source for concern and opposition only when they begin to subsume the elites who are responsible for those abuses. Recall how former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman - one of the most outspoken defenders of the illegal Bush National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless eavesdropping program - suddenly began sounding like an irate, life-long ACLU privacy activist when it was revealed that the NSA had eavesdropped on her private communications with a suspected Israeli agent over alleged attempts to intervene on behalf of AIPAC officials accused of espionage. Overnight, one of the Surveillance State's chief assets, the former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, transformed into a vocal privacy proponent because now it was her activities, rather than those of powerless citizens, which were invaded.
With the private, intimate activities of America's most revered military and intelligence officials being smeared all over newspapers and televisions for no good reason, perhaps similar conversions are possible. Put another way, having the career of the beloved CIA Director and the commanding general in Afghanistan instantly destroyed due to highly invasive and unwarranted electronic surveillance is almost enough to make one believe not only that there is a god, but that he is an ardent civil libertarian.
Jane (Harman) is an ignorant .
Ugh....I'm trying to keep this clean in my head. Failing.
You need a hobby....and a beer.
You're noted. Again.You need a hobby....and a beer.
so much for conspiracies:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...al-committees/
Referral by FBI and DOJ under the 1917 Espionage Act:
http://boingboing.net/2015/01/10/if-...d-over-le.htmlIn a surprising development, the New York Times reported late Friday that the FBI and Justice Department have recommended felony charges against ex-CIA director David Petraeus for leaking classified information to his former biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. While the Times does not specify, the most likely law prosecutors would charge Petraeus under is the same as Edward Snowden and many other leakers: the 1917 Espionage Act.
It remains to be seen whether Petraeus will actually be indicted (given how high-ranking government officials so often escape punishment), and the decision now sits on Attorney General Eric Holder’s desk. But this is a fascinating and important case for several reasons.
First, all of Petraeus' powerful D.C. friends and allies are about to be shocked to find out how seriously unjust the Espionage Act is—a fact that has been all too real for many low-level whistleblowers for years.
By all accounts, Petraeus’s leak caused no damage to US national security. “So why is he being charged,” his powerful friends will surely ask. Well, that does not matter under the Espionage Act. Even if your leak caused no national security damage at all, you can still be charged, and you can’t argue otherwise as a defense at trial. If that sounds like it can’t be true, ask former State Department official Stephen Kim, who is now serving a prison sentence for leaking to Fox News reporter James Rosen. The judge in his case ruled that prosecutors did not have to prove his leak harmed national security in order to be found guilty.
It doesn’t matter what Petraeus’s motive for leaking was either. While most felonies require mens rea (an intentional state of mind) for a crime to have occurred, under the Espionage Act this is not required. It doesn’t matter that Petraeus is not an actual spy. It also doesn’t matter if Petraeus leaked the information by accident, or whether he leaked it to better inform the public, or even whether he leaked it to stop a terrorist attack. It’s still technically a crime, and his motive for leaking cannot be brought up at trial as a defense.
One rumor is it's the "carrot and the stick". Don't ever tell what you REALLY know about Benghazi (he toed the Obama "it was about the movie" line in his first testimony to congress) and we won't ever charge you with espionage.
The pissed off Republicans may control the new Benghazi hearings but Obama still controls the FBI.
where'd you hear the rumor?
why would Obama need to silence Petraeus after Issa's years long inquiry came up empty and shut down, and well after Petraeus himself had already resigned in disgrace?
CC
My guess is they'll let Petraeus skate free, just like the banks. No Law Is Above The Man.
I honestly don't remember. I think it was a guest on CNN. It's no secret that the Republicans think Petraeus lied to Congress and that Tey Gowdy is reopening Benghazi hearings this month now that Republicans control the sub-committees. Obviously it's political to hurt Hillary Clinton but nobody in the White House wants Petraeus spilling his guts to Gowdy.
In Buotons fantasy world, why would Fox News say anything bad about Republicans, especially the anti-Hillary motive for new Benghazi hearings?CC
My guess is they'll let Petraeus skate free, just like the banks. No Law Is Above The Man.
lol Benghazi
I actually agree but it is what it is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
