The media is blowing this out of proportion IMO. All I have heard is the FBI looking into whether she had any emails she shouldn't have. I am betting she doesnt. If she does THAT is a huge frickin deal
the ny times article posted above said she gave FBI her laptop and that she had a few classified docs on there but she said they weren't from petraeus.
Post by vanillacourage on Nov 12, 2012 13:05:28 GMT -5
From Yahoo's article (on its front page) - hadn't read that the biographer had sent threatening emails to a military volunteer...
Broadwell = biographer having an affair with Petraus.
As the details of the investigation launched by the FBI unraveled this weekend, it became clear that the woman at the heart of the inquiry that led to Petraeus' downfall had been identified as Jill Kelley, a Florida woman who volunteers to help the military. She is a family friend of Petraeus, who Broadwell apparently felt threatened by.
Kelley and her husband are longtime supporters of the military, and six months ago she was named "Honorary Ambassador to Central Command" for her volunteer work with the military. Officials say Kelley is not romantically linked to Petraeus, but befriended the general and his wife when he was stationed in Florida. The Kelleys spent Christmases in group settings with the Petraeuses and visited them in Washington D.C., where Kelley's sister and her son live.
"We and our family have been friends with Gen. Petraeus and his family for over five years." Kelley said in a statement Sunday. "We respect his and his family's privacy and want the same for us and our three children."
Earlier this year, around the time that Petraeus and Broadwell were breaking off their affair, Kelly began receiving anonymous emails, which she found so threatening she went to authorities. The FBI traced the messages to Broadwell's computer, where they found other salacious and explicit emails between Broadwell and Petraeus that made it clear to officials that the two were carrying on an affair.
I have a question for those thinking this has something to do with Benganzi. What exactly do you think they are trying to cover up?
Completely speculative, but it's possible that the Obama administration knew about the affair for months and kept it a secret during Obama's bid for re-election. They didn't want the Benghazi incident to get more coverage, and they knew that linking it to a sex scandal would do just that. Once Obama won re-election (and continued to remain relatively unscathed by the Benghazi incident), the administration wanted someone to take the fall. Who better than an adulterer. Again, pure speculation.
I have a question for those thinking this has something to do with Benganzi. What exactly do you think they are trying to cover up?
Completely speculative, but it's possible that the Obama administration knew about the affair for months and kept it a secret during Obama's bid for re-election. They didn't want the Benghazi incident to get more coverage, and they knew that linking it to a sex scandal would do just that. Once Obama won re-election (and continued to remain relatively unscathed by the Benghazi incident), the administration wanted someone to take the fall. Who better than an adulterer. Again, pure speculation.
But I don't understand how someone thinks he is "taking the fall" for Benganzi. What is he "taking the fall" for? And how is him having an affair have anything to do with what happened at Benganzi? Why would people have linked it to Benganzi i the affair news was released prior to the election? I'm missing some connection here that some people are making (including my SIL, who I can't ask and have a calm conversation about it, which is why I'm asking here).
Post by msamyfarrahfowler on Nov 12, 2012 13:58:43 GMT -5
He's the perfect fall man. He's blameworthy in a moral sense, so it wouldn't be a stretch to point the blame at him for other things. Some people are looking at Petraeus now and are thinking, "Of course he fucked up Benghazi, he's the same idiot that gave Broadwell access to his email account and classified documents."
He's the perfect fall man. He's blameworthy in a moral sense, so it wouldn't be a stretch to point the blame at him for other things. Some people are looking at Petraeus now and are thinking, "Of course he fucked up Benghazi, he's the same idiot that gave Broadwell access to his email account and classified documents."
Velvet, are you wondering how he personally had a role in fucking up Benghazi, or do you think that there wasn't a series of blunders to begin with?
Both I guess. What exactly is the series of blunders people think happened? I know some think the powers that fucked up by sticking with the "it was over a video" story too long (which I understand the logic there, just don't agree) But that is one thing, not a series of things--what else is being called a "blunder"?
Congress can still make him testify right? How does him stepping down change what he knows about Benghazi? He was IT at the time so he will still have info to talk about
The only thing that changes with him stepping down is that the President no longer has leverage to push him to testify (so can't be blamed if Petraus doesn't).
If he doesn't testify voluntarily, he'll be subpoenaed. I really don't think this is the issue. If they are hiding something, it's something that is still hidden.
Post by msamyfarrahfowler on Nov 12, 2012 14:27:59 GMT -5
Velvet, I think it came to light during the hearings that the embassy was almost a front for a CIA compound. It seems like the CIA had a large presence in Benghazi, yet failed at protecting consulate officials. There seemed to be many warning signs that an attack was imminent. Intelligence reports indicated that terrorists were gaining a presence in Libya, and Stevens himself pled for additional security. It's arguable that the State Dept. and the CIA didn't do enough to protect the 4 people that were killed.
The only thing that changes with him stepping down is that the President no longer has leverage to push him to testify (so can't be blamed if Petraus doesn't).
What? What is the incentive to testify then? P can crawl into a dark hole as much as possible now
I hope he does the right thing and steps up without being forced
Not much incentive, true. And he can always just plead the 5th and they can't do much to him.
I'm still trying to figure out what people think he has to testify about.
Velvet, I think it came to light during the hearings that the embassy was almost a front for a CIA compound. It seems like the CIA had a large presence in Benghazi, yet failed at protecting consulate officials. There seemed to be many warning signs that an attack was imminent. Intelligence reports indicated that terrorists were gaining a presence in Libya, and Stevens himself pled for additional security. It's arguable that the State Dept. and the CIA didn't do enough to protect the 4 people that were killed.
Thanks for the response:) First, it was a consulate, not an embassy. Might not seem like a big detail to some, but it is a huge detail when one starts pulling at the "front for a CIA compound" part. Second, I guess I know too much about how things work, I can't see how the CIA would be responsible for protecting consulate officials even if the consulate was mostly a CIA front, overseas the CIA doesn't even really provide protection for their own personnel, the State Dept and military does that. So that's why I was missing that link. Makes sense now.
I know I'm hugely biased here, I guess I just can't believe it was a purposeful series of calculated decisions where the Govt knew lives were at risk, and decided to just risk it, especially since it was Stevens. But I can see how people without that bias could follow the logic you presented.
All I'd read before is "Benganzi!!!!!11!!!!!Conspiracy!!!!11!! Petraues Benganzi Coverup!!!!!!Elevenity!!!!!
From Yahoo's article (on its front page) - hadn't read that the biographer had sent threatening emails to a military volunteer...
Broadwell = biographer having an affair with Petraus.
As the details of the investigation launched by the FBI unraveled this weekend, it became clear that the woman at the heart of the inquiry that led to Petraeus' downfall had been identified as Jill Kelley, a Florida woman who volunteers to help the military. She is a family friend of Petraeus, who Broadwell apparently felt threatened by.
Kelley and her husband are longtime supporters of the military, and six months ago she was named "Honorary Ambassador to Central Command" for her volunteer work with the military. Officials say Kelley is not romantically linked to Petraeus, but befriended the general and his wife when he was stationed in Florida. The Kelleys spent Christmases in group settings with the Petraeuses and visited them in Washington D.C., where Kelley's sister and her son live.
"We and our family have been friends with Gen. Petraeus and his family for over five years." Kelley said in a statement Sunday. "We respect his and his family's privacy and want the same for us and our three children."
Earlier this year, around the time that Petraeus and Broadwell were breaking off their affair, Kelly began receiving anonymous emails, which she found so threatening she went to authorities. The FBI traced the messages to Broadwell's computer, where they found other salacious and explicit emails between Broadwell and Petraeus that made it clear to officials that the two were carrying on an affair.
Wow, so basically, their affair may not have been outed if she hadn't gone crazyjealousbitch on some random family friend? Sounds like a trainwreck all around!
Post by msamyfarrahfowler on Nov 12, 2012 15:13:09 GMT -5
Velvet, you're right, there's a big difference between a consulate and an embassy. Do you work on the hill?
Even if it wasn't the CIA's job to protect consulate officials, shouldn't they have passed on the info to the State Dept.?
I just feel like the attack could've been avoided. But maybe this is in line with accusing Condi Rice of having sufficient warnings about stop 9/11. Hindsight is 20/20?
Velvet, you're right, there's a big difference between a consulate and an embassy. Do you work on the hill?
No, I work for an evil govt contractor I'm a diplo-brat that spent the first part of my life being one of those people needing protection overseas. And have lots of family and close friends in the industry (Agency, State, military, Embassy/consulate staff, DHS, etc).
Even if it wasn't the CIA's job to protect consulate officials, shouldn't they have passed on the info to the State Dept.?
See, with my bias, I'd have to know how different the info was from what they normally get. If the information stood out like it had flashing neons lights, of course they should have, and I'd hope they had. If it was information that looked in line with what they get every other hour and have to make a judgement call on? That falls into the Hindsight is 20/20 to me--we can not possibly respond to every threat/bit of info gathered. That idea is just mind-boggling.
I just feel like the attack could've been avoided. But maybe this is in line with accusing Condi Rice of having sufficient warnings about stop 9/11. Hindsight is 20/20?
And I probably just fall in the Hindsight is 20/20 viewpoint until it is proven that the level of risk was known and a decision was made to not respond to it. Don't think I'd have lived to adulthood and be sane if I thought otherwise:)
I honestly don't know if the CIA is subject to the UCMJ. If they are, or if the affair started before he left the military, he could be punished under that.
Otherwise, it is a big deal. Having an affair puts him at risk for blackmail or other pressure to reveal information. Even if he never gave her any information at all, having an illicit affair makes it a risk.
And security clearances are no joke. I have friends that have to disclose we are friends on their paperwork, because I am a foreign national. I've been interviewed about neighbours who were undergoing security clearance checks. Spouses are included in the checks done for security clearances, too.
So, yeah, it's a concern. I think the media might be going over the top on it, but it is an issue, and certainly one that it is not unreasonable to see him resigning over.
You can lose your security clearance for all kinds of reasons, this would be one of them. You can't exactly be the Head of the CIA without a security clearance.
Like pp's have said this also puts him in a position where he could be blackmailed and that could compromise national security.
anyone with a security clearance is held to higher standards because of the potential for the threat of blackmail or bribery.
I think there's definitely more to it. The timing of the resignation in light of the Benghazi incident and the election indicate a cover-up of some sort.
Absolutely this. He's just the fall guy taking the hit on the cover-up.