Should Patraeus Be Prosecuted?

Long article about Petraeus in the WashPost today. His aides apparently smelled trouble the minute this woman arrived.

The "official", ie for now, story is that the FBI got involved when a third woman complained about threatening emails from Petraeus' gilrfriend, who thought he was hooking up with this other woman. When they went into her email, they found all these steamy emails from Petraeus and supposedly thought someone had hacked his account. They they linked things up and realized what was going on. It just so happened that it all came together right after the election, conveniently. Another in the endless cases of nothing to see here folks, move along.

My take is that the FBI doesn't start snooping around in the Director of Central Freakin' Intelligence's emails without the Attorney General at least signing off on it. Maybe the President. And they don't go to them unless they have an airtight case. Otherwise an agent could find themselves assigned to the Nome , Alaska field office.

They must have know for weeks or months about his indiscretion. Probably used it to blackmail him into lying about Benghazi, with promises that they'd let him off the hook after the election or that they'd make it all go away.

There's a lot more here than has come out. Even liberals sense it, and with the election safely over, maybe the press suddenly develops some curiosity.
 
It seems the FBI had started the investigation many months ago. How long does it take to look through some emails? A couple days or so?

Then there was the statment that some in Congress were going to ask for Petraes to resign in late October. Were these just Democraps or what? Who knew about this in October?
 
Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, said Saturday an F.B.I. employee whom his staff described as a whistle-blower told him about Mr. Petraeus’s affair and a possible security breach in late October, according to the NY Times.
 
Think of the irony we have here.

It would generally be frowned upon and seen as a high security risk for someone in Gen Patraeus's position to have an affair because of the risk of blackmail by foreign nationals .

This may be a case where US national security was jeapoardized by blackmail risk from our own govt.
 
There are a lot of loose ends here. Of course, a bunch of idiot republicans were on the sunday morning shows saying what a great american he was and how we should just forget about it. Is it any wonder these thugs from chicago steal their lunch money every day?

We have a scandal of perhaps historic proportions here. Petraeus was in clear violation of the UCMJ, yet the FBI did nothing. Petraeus must have lied in his confirmation interviews and background check. I mean, do they not ask the candidate to head the cIA if he has violated any laws or has any indiscretions that could subject him to blackmail? Why bother to do a background test?

Then there is the whole Benghazi thing. He went up to Capitol Hill and willfully misled congress. More of the expected CIA incompetency or something more sinister at play? Was he being blackmailed by the WH?

Why are these republican dolts so eager to sweep it under the rug?

In fact, I am beginning to wonder if there is some connection between all this and Romney's refusal to talk about Benghazi in the third debate. You know, the one that cost him the presidency.

I would like to know WTF is going on.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

There are a lot of loose ends here. Of course, a bunch of idiot republicans were on the sunday morning shows saying what a great american he was and how we should just forget about it. Is it any wonder these thugs from chicago steal their lunch money every day?

We have a scandal of perhaps historic proportions here. Petraeus was in clear violation of the UCMJ, yet the FBI did nothing. Petraeus must have lied in his confirmation interviews and background check. I mean, do they not ask the candidate to head the cIA if he has violated any laws or has any indiscretions that could subject him to blackmail? Why bother to do a background test?

Then there is the whole Benghazi thing. He went up to Capitol Hill and willfully misled congress. More of the expected CIA incompetency or something more sinister at play? Was he being blackmailed by the WH?

Why are these republican dolts so eager to sweep it under the rug?

In fact, I am beginning to wonder if there is some connection between all this and Romney's refusal to talk about Benghazi in the third debate. You know, the one that cost him the presidency.

I would like to know WTF is going on.
More...
Romney would definitely not have been in the loop about any of it.

It's always on a need to know basis and I'm damn sure the obama admin knew he didn't need to know.
 
Eric Cantor has admitted to knowing this in October. If he knew, others knew. The adminstration continues with their Sgt. Shultz defense. They know nothing. Seems they don't know much of anything that's going on. Anything which doesn't fit their narrative of all is well...they know nothing.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

There are a lot of loose ends here. Of course, a bunch of idiot republicans were on the sunday morning shows saying what a great american he was and how we should just forget about it. Is it any wonder these thugs from chicago steal their lunch money every day?

We have a scandal of perhaps historic proportions here. Petraeus was in clear violation of the UCMJ, yet the FBI did nothing. Petraeus must have lied in his confirmation interviews and background check. I mean, do they not ask the candidate to head the cIA if he has violated any laws or has any indiscretions that could subject him to blackmail? Why bother to do a background test?

Then there is the whole Benghazi thing. He went up to Capitol Hill and willfully misled congress. More of the expected CIA incompetency or something more sinister at play? Was he being blackmailed by the WH?

Why are these republican dolts so eager to sweep it under the rug?

In fact, I am beginning to wonder if there is some connection between all this and Romney's refusal to talk about Benghazi in the third debate. You know, the one that cost him the presidency.

I would like to know WTF is going on.
More...
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

"Should Patraeus Be Prosecuted?"

Friend: Petraeus began affair after taking CIA job
http://www.wral.com/friend-petraeus-began-affair-after-taking-cia-job/11763684/

Prosecuted? For what? The affair started after he left the military so it is not subject to the UCMJ. Also an affair is not against criminal law.
More...

Doesn't anybody besides me think this affair business is just a misdirect to prevent him from revealing harmful info about Odumbo and his knowledge of what/when in the Benghazi business??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top