CIA director David Petraeus resigns citing extramarital affair.

[observor 69]

  I like her.  ;D

That, and comparing pics of her and the General's wife.....well, good on 'im.


And that folks is the extent of the intellectual depth I figure this earth-shattering topic warrants.

 

[Maxadia]

Except that she dumped him a while back.

So now imagine his wife's picture again, and this time think about the mood she is in.

 

[Old Sweat]

I saw a picture of Mrs Patreaus taken with him when he was Captain of Cadets at West Point and she was the Superintendant's daughter. She was a very attractive young lady with long blonde hair.

Unfortunately the tendency of the c.ck-brain switch to get stuck in the c.ck position has been the ruin of many a good man, and the making of many a lawyer's  fortune.

 

[OldSolduer]

I saw a picture of Mrs Patreaus taken with him when he was Captain of Cadets at West Point and she was the Superintendant's daughter. She was a very attractive young lady with long blonde hair.

Unfortunately the tendency of the c.ck-brain switch to get stuck in the c.ck position has been the ruin of many a good man, and the making of many a lawyer's  fortune.

Biology will trump everything. A few years of training doesn't undo basic human nature.

 

[exspy]

I saw a picture of Mrs Patreaus taken with him when he was Captain of Cadets at West Point and she was the Superintendant's daughter. She was a very attractive young lady with long blonde hair.

Always a good move to marry the boss' daughter.  Holly Knowlton's father, at the time David married her, was a three-star.​

 

[cupper]

Latest from the post, apparently Petraeus didn't take heed of the tale from Fatal Attraction.

Also, it seems that there was no security breach, just a man with his d**k caught in his zipper.

FBI probe of Petraeus triggered by e-mail threats from biographer, officials say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-probe-of-petraeus-triggered-by-e-mail-threats-from-biographer-officials-say/2012/11/10/d2fc52de-2b68-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html?hpid=z1

The collapse of the dazzling career of CIA Director David H. Petraeus was triggered when a woman whom he was having an affair with sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to him, according to three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode.

The recipient of the e-mails was so frightened that she went to the FBI for protection and help tracking down the sender, according to the officials. The FBI investigation traced the threats to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and a Petraeus biographer, and uncovered explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus, the officials said.

When Petraeus’s name first surfaced, FBI investigators were concerned that the CIA director’s personal e-mail account had been hacked and security had been breached. But the sexual nature of the e-mails led them to conclude that Petraeus and Broadwell were engaged in an affair, the officials said.

The identity of the woman who received the e-mails was not disclosed, and the nature of her relationship with Petraeus is unknown. The law enforcement officials said the e-mails indicated that Broadwell perceived the other woman as a threat to her relationship with Petraeus.

...

The law enforcement officials did not provide an exact timeline for the investigation, but they said that the inquiry started at least several weeks ago. They said investigators thought they were dealing with a routine harassment case until they discovered the e-mails were traced to a private e-mail account belonging to Petraeus.

The initial concern was that someone had broken into the CIA director’s e-mail account, leading to concerns about potential security breaches, according to the officials. As the investigation proceeded and more e-mails emerged, along with Broadwell’s role, FBI investigators realized they had uncovered an affair between Petraeus and Broadwell, the officials said.

The investigators first interviewed Petraeus about two weeks ago, the officials said. Petraeus was told at the time that no criminal charges would be forthcoming and the idea of him resigning was not raised, the officials said.

One of the law enforcement officials said Justice Department officials were unclear on what steps to take next because they had determined that there had been no crime and no breach of security.

It was not until Tuesday that the Justice Department notified James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, that compromising material about Petraeus had been uncovered as part of an investigation, according to a senior intelligence official. Clapper then spoke with Petraeus and told him to resign.

“Director Clapper learned of the situation from the FBI on Tuesday evening around 5 p.m.,” the intelligence official said. “In subsequent conversations with Director Petraeus, Director Clapper advised Director Petraeus to resign.”

The official declined to say whether Petraeus had considered resigning at that point, but he said it was quickly clear to Clapper that stepping down was “the right thing to do” for Petraeus.

The official said that Clapper has been fully briefed on all aspects of the FBI investigation and has not called for the DNI or CIA to conduct a follow-on probe or damage assessment — indicating that Clapper does not see the case as a security threat.

“There are no investigations beyond” that initiated by the FBI, the intelligence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The official also would not address why the DNI and others weren’t notified of the FBI investigation — and its link to Petraeus — earlier.

“This is a very personal matter, not a matter of intelligence,” the official said. “There are protocols for this. I would imagine things have to cross a certain threshold before they are reportable.”

Clapper told the White House late Wednesday and no action was taken until Thursday morning, when Obama was informed. Petraeus came to the White House later on Thursday and offered his resignation. The president accepted it Friday.

 

[tomahawk6]

Patreaus was a smart guy and his rise through the ranks was due to ability. Gen Knowlton retired in 1980.

 

[a_majoor]

Some more about the timing of the resignation. This is quite interesting, since the FBI was apparently on the case as far back as 2011. The way the resignation was handled seems to have been done to inflict as much damage on the General's reputation as possible (no quiet resignation due to "family reasons"), which would seem to feed the idea that he will not be able to testify and any revelations that come out in a book or interview in the future will simply be overwhelmed by the Legacy Media pulling out the "affair" narrative. While this isn't to say that he was in any way correct in having an affair, the fact of the matter is this will be what he is remembered for.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/more-on-the-timing-of-petraeuss-resignation.php

MORE ON THE TIMING OF PETRAEUS’S RESIGNATION
Ronald Kessler of Newsmax has more details on the Petraeus affair. They are rather sordid, and raise more questions about the timing of his resignation:

[A]n FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.

The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan. …

Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.


Perhaps this one?

At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.

“Thousands of emails” over “several months”? If “thousands” means two thousand, and “several” means three, we’d be talking about more than 20 emails per day. Ouch.

FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11.

Right, emailing her was turning into a full-time job.

Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

Seems like a fair assessment. One wonders what other shoes will drop, now that the election is over.

 

[exspy]

This is quite interesting, since the FBI was apparently on the case as far back as 2011.

I read the quote differently.  The investigation started last Spring (of 2012).  During the investigation the FBI began to look at Petraeus' emails from 2011.  This is not the same as saying that the Bureau has been on the case since 2011.

... which would seem to feed the idea that he will not be able to testify...

I don't think that this will be an issue.  If he's subpoenaed by Congress to testify, he will have to.  Even so, there will be plenty of CIA senior managers in the know about the Benghazi attack to testify in David's place.  The Benghazi issue isn't going to disappear off of the President's desk simply because of Petraeus' removal.

My view is, this resignation has nothing to do with Benghazi.  If, as alleged, Petraeus was carrying on following the break-up of his affair like a 13-year old high school boy, then retaining him as the Director of Central Intelligence would have been just too embarrassing when it got out.  And it always gets out.  Langley is no different than any other bureaucracy.  Gossips everywhere.

I also believe that his affair was known about by those in power for as long as it was going on.  A four-star and a reporter being kept secret for years?  I don't see it.  Maybe, if he'd handled the break-up in a more mature way, he'd still be DCI.  We'll never know.

No, the only person responsible for Petraeus' downfall is David himself.  Well, him and Little David.

Cheers,
Dan.

 

[FJAG]

Some more about the timing of the resignation. This is quite interesting, since the FBI was apparently on the case as far back as 2011.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/more-on-the-timing-of-petraeuss-resignation.php

This info is quite different from the timing laid out in the Washington Post article which states Patreus was only interviewed a few weeks ago and that it didn't hit senior level until after the election.

I note your article sources back to NewsMax which is described as follows:

"A March 2009 profile of Ruddy and Newsmax on Forbes.com described his media company as the "great right hope" of the Republican Party and said after just a decade of operations it had become a "media powerhouse." Political analyst Dick Morris told Forbes that Newsmax had become the "most influential Republican-leaning media outlet" in the nation"

At this point in time I take their articles with a grain of salt.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The other thing that gets me is, why do things you do in the privacy of your own home (or the home of someone else  ) behind closed doors, dictate whether you keep your job or not?

When people say "I'm resigning because I got caught cheating on my spouse" it stinks of other controversial wrong-doing, other than something like an affair that holds no penalty to one's employment.

Its pretty standard practice within orgs' that require elevated security clearances.  Think about it from a different angle.  How hard is it to pressure someone to do things when someone has something they can use against them?  Blackmail, etc is still done and you take a high-profile figure, find out they've been messin' around; threaten to expose them unless they "do this. that.  or the other thing". 

 

[a_majoor]

I see I misread the dates WRT when the FBI investigation started.

As for the source, would you rather get news from the paper that initially reported the Benghazi attack and the death of a US ambassador on page A4? And basically ignored the story as much as possible thereafter? Frankly, the Legacy Media no longer is a trustworthy source of information, so I take multiple sources and try to distill something out of all that.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

A tragedy worthy of the classic Greek playwrights. A great man brought down by a very human failing.

 

[Haletown]

Doesn't say much about the vetting process for the head of the CIA.

You would think think the vetters would ask him about any closet hiding skeletons, odd things that could come back to haunt him and the Administration. 

What Did he tell the vetters?  You would think the vetters would check phone and email accounts for unusual activities such as thousands of emails sent to one person.

This story isn't told yet.

 

[exspy]

Doesn't say much about the vetting process for the head of the CIA.

You would think think the vetters would ask him about any closet hiding skeletons, odd things that could come back to haunt him and the Administration. 

What Did he tell the vetters?  You would think the vetters would check phone and email accounts for unusual activities such as thousands of emails sent to one person.

This story isn't told yet.

Two things.  And they are both complete speculation on my part.  First, I'll bet he did tell the vetting investigators about his affair.  Admission of marital strains and a second relationship are not grounds for denying a security clearance, and as I have mentioned earlier, if he hadn't admitted to it, I bet there were more than enough gossips at Langley and the Pentagon who would have let the VI's know.  As long as the affair is admitted to at the beginning then there is no security concern.  A person cannot be blackmailed for something of which his chain of command is aware.

Second, I agree that this story isn't told yet.  Wait until the nature of the e-mails is made public.  Then the reason for the dismissal will be known.  I still think it was Petraeus' immaturity in handling this that did him in.

We will all know it's over when the mistress is standing beside Gloria Allred in front of a media scrum who are asking if she has a stained dress as proof.

Cheers,
Dan.

 

[Haletown]

"They" might have known but everyone else is denying they knew.  No disclosure to Congressional oversight folks, big surprise to the FBI, etc.

The story is he resigned because of the affair, but if it was disclosed during vetting, it seems odd to resign now Seems even more odd that nobody in the White House would be told their new D/CIA was an adulterer who could be exposed at anytime. 

Only surface srarching on this story so far,  thin surface scratching.

 

[jeffb]

This goes beyond blackmail and he was not part of the chain of command. He was the HEAD of the chain of command for the CIA. Remember that extramarital affairs are a chargeable offense under the United States Code of Military Justice. Yes, I know that the CIA is not subject to the USCMJ but the logic of it being a chargeable offense does not change. If someone can not be trusted to maintain their wedding vows, how can they be trusted to safeguard their nations greatest secrets? Admitting it is good but I can not see how he could maintain credibility running an organization such as this with this in his recent past.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Two things.  And they are both complete speculation on my part.  First, I'll bet he did tell the vetting investigators about his affair.  Admission of marital strains and a second relationship are not grounds for denying a security clearance, and as I have mentioned earlier, if he hadn't admitted to it, I bet there were more than enough gossips at Langley and the Pentagon who would have let the VI's know.  As long as the affair is admitted to at the beginning then there is no security concern.  A person cannot be blackmailed for something of which his chain of command is aware.

As my British friends would say, "Bollocks." Having worked with both U.S. military and intelligence personnel I can say that the Americans are death-on-wheels when it comes to any indiscretion/ improprieties. If Petraeus had admitted during the vetting process that he was having an affair, he would never have been appointed head of the CIA.

Second comment. Since CIA personnel have to take a polygraph on a regular basis, I wonder, if during the vetting process Petraeus took one.

 

[exspy]

This goes beyond blackmail and he was not part of the chain of command. He was the HEAD of the chain of command for the CIA.

Even the DCI has a chain of command.  There are positions in the US government to which he reports and persons who have the power to fire him.  It was the President's National Security Advisor who told Petraeus to offer his resignation, which the President accepted.

Remember that extramarital affairs are a chargeable offense under the United States Code of Military Justice. Yes, I know that the CIA is not subject to the USCMJ but the logic of it being a chargeable offense does not change.

True.  So the USCMJ really isn't an issue in this case.

If someone can not be trusted to maintain their wedding vows, how can they be trusted to safeguard their nations greatest secrets?

By this argument, no divorced person can ever be awarded a TS clearance.  The Public Service is rife with divorced persons carrying a TS, or higher, clearance.  So to, I would imagine, is NDHQ.  I'm old enough to remember this same argument being made when Pierre Trudeau was divorced from Margaret.  "If he can't be trusted to keep his marriage vows how can he be trusted to run the country" or some such thing.

Admitting it is good but I can not see how he could maintain credibility running an organization such as this with this in his recent past.

It's still my belief that it's not the fact he had a mistress that did him in, but how sloppy he was in conducting the affair and ending it.  It's what will come out from his e-mails with her that will show them to have been the deciding factor.  Details of which, when the President and his NSA were made aware, made Petraeus' dismissal inevitable.

Cheers,
Dan.

 

[exspy]

If Petraeus had admitted during the vetting process that he was having an affair, he would never have been appointed head of the CIA.

Maybe, maybe not.  I have my view and you have yours.  Sometimes the candidate's ability and the desire of the President to get the person he wants over rides other factors.  Remember that it's not the persons doing the vetting who decide which person will or will not get a clearance.  That decision is made by the person doing the hiring, who then assumes the responsibility for the appointment.

Second comment. Since CIA personnel have to take a polygraph on a regular basis, I wonder, if during the vetting process Petraeus took one.

Well, if it's like the Canadian public service, the answer would be yes and no.  These days, new entrants to certain organizations are required to be polygraphed.  It's a condition of their employment.  Senior public servants, however, do not necessarily have to.  The theory being that they have proven their loyalty by their years of service.  They have to be vetted as their security clearance is upgraded, but the do not always need to be polygraphed.  They can volunteer for one, but who would do that?

I don't know what the requirements for polygraphs are for the CIA, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if, because of his background, he was not.

Cheers,
Dan.