CIA director David Petraeus resigns citing extramarital affair.

[Eye In The Sky]

Dan M.

Stop.  You are making this thread painful with your "pin the tail on the donkey" thought process.  :facepalm:

 

[Retired AF Guy]

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.

Yes, you are correct, but would you sign-off on someone's security clearance knowing that they were an adulter/drug-user/whatever, and knowing that if the indiscretions became public you would be the one holding the bag? I don't think so.

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.

You make a good point. After I made my last post I was reading the blog In From the Cold which is maintained by a former member of the U.S. Intelligence community and he says something similar.

What About the Vetting Process?  Many have expressed surprise that Petraeus's affair wasn't discovered during his confirmation process as CIA Director.  But the fact is, General Petraeus received only a cursory check as he retired from the Army and moved to Langley.  As a senior military commander, Petraeus already had access to the nation's most sensitive secrets, and investigators had decades of security clearance investigations and updates to draw upon.  On the surface, David Petraeus looked remarkably clean and since he didn't disclose the affair at the time of his confirmation, there was nothing in his background check to arouse suspicions.  And, as former FBI agent Gary Aldrich observed during the Clinton years, greater latitude is given to political appointees in terms of past misdeeds and questionable behavior.  But the general failed to report his affair--for rather obvious reasons--so it remained a secret until the FBI began its probe.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

In my previous post I linked to a website In From the Cold which is run by a former spook who has some interesting theories on the Petraeus affair. Here, re-produced under the usual provisions of the Copyright Act is his first musings from last Friday:

The Sudden (and Curious) Departure of David Petraeus

In one of the first shock waves to hit Washington since Tuesday's Presidential election, CIA Director David Petraeus announced his resignation this afternoon, citing an extra-marital affair. NBC News has the take-away quote from the retired Army general and now "former" spook:

"AFTER BEING MARRIED FOR OVER 37 YEARS, I SHOWED EXTREMELY POOR JUDGMENT BY ENGAGING IN AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR. SUCH BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE, BOTH AS A HUSBAND AND AS THE LEADER OF AN ORGANIZATION SUCH AS OURS."

Describing Petraeus's departure as a surprise would be an understatement.  There have been no whispers in the nation's capital about a possible change of leadership at CIA, or any extra-curricular activities involving General Petraeus.  Indeed, with last year's appointment of his wife to a senior post at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the Petraeus' seemed hard-wired into the Washington establishment, and seemed poised to remain in government indefinitely.  There was no word today on whether the general's wife, Holly Petraeus, planned to leave her position at the CFPB.

Long-time associates of Petraeus described the resignation as consistent with the general's character.  "He feels that he screwed up.  He did a dishonorable thing and needed to try to do the honorable thing," one former confidant told the Danger Room in an e-mail. 

That may certainly be the case.  But powerful men and women in the nation's capital admit indiscretions only reluctantly.  In fact, there was nothing to indicate that Petraeus would soon leave the CIA post; in recent days, he had provided "rules for living" to Newsweek magazine, through his biographer and long-time confidant, Paula Broadwell--later revealed as the "other" woman.  If Petraeus knew the affair was about to become public, it's doubtful that he would have supplied the list, which includes such axioms as "lead by example," and "recognize and admit your mistakes."  Guess one out of two isn't that bad. 

David Petraeus's sudden fall from grace invites a rather obvious question, namely who leaked information about his affair.  In our experience, someone at the general's level typically resigns over an affair when the story is about to hit the press.  We're guessing that someone in the media was given the details about the CIA Director's extra-marital affair, and they called Langley asking for a statement.  Realizing his indiscretion would soon become public, Petraeus took the pro-active step of submitting his resignation, which was "regretfully" accepted by President Obama. 

So, who "got" David Petraeus?  Beyond his own, deplorable conduct, there is the list of ususal suspects.  We'll begin with veterans of the CIA clandestine service and paramilitary operations directorate.  They are furious over Petraeus's conduct in the aftermath of the Benghazi debacle, when his statements on the attack were similar to those of administration officials, who suggested the attack on the consulate was the result of  an "out-of-control" protest, sparked by outrage over an internet video that offensive to Muslims.  Two CIA contractors were among the four Americans killed in the attack and other agency personnel were wounded.  Yet, the administration did nothing to send assistance to the besieged consulate, other than a quick reaction force from the embassy in Tripoli. 

As we've noted before, no one plays the "leak" game better than the spook community.  As the White House clung to its "video" narrative, operatives involved in the Benghazi operation began passing details of that fateful night, raising new questions about what actually occurred.  The leaks were aimed (in part) at the administration, but they were also directed at Petraeus and the Director of National Intelligence (James Clapper) who were viewed as not only abandoning operatives on the ground, but doing little to defend the reputation of intelligence professionals when various administration officials suggested the community "got it wrong" before Benghazi. 

Then, more than six weeks after the attack, Petraeus did something a bit unusual.  Realizing the White House's well-deserved reputation for throwing people under the bus, the CIA Director announced that no one at his agency had taken steps to prevent assistance from reaching our diplomats and intel operators on the ground in Benghazi.  That assertion shifted the blame squarely on the administration and the Pentagon.  Needless to say, Petraeus's comments didn't exactly win him any friends in the West Wing, or on the E-ring of the Pentagon.  And, if he was trying to rally support in the spook world, it was probably too late for that as well. 

So members of the intel community had plenty of motive for exposing the CIA Director's extra-curricular activities.  And, it wouldn't be that hard to discover what he was up to.  As a former senior commander (and more recently as head of the CIA), Petraeus has been living in a 24-hour security bubble for years, so his protection detail was probably aware of the affair, and it didn't take long for word to leak to other spooks, who had plenty of motive to get rid of Petraeus. Additionally, there are now reports the affair began during his military days--possibly dating to the general's tenure as our commander in Iraq and Afghanistan--so there were plenty of people in a position to "know." 

But don't exclude the possibility of a White House "job," either.  Relations between the retired General and Mr. Obama were never good; there were disagreements over U.S. policies in Afghanistan and many in the administration viewed Petraeus as "too independent" for the job.  And, when the CIA Director blamed the lack of support in Benghazi on the White House, the administration had a clear reason for getting rid of General Petraeus.  As President Obama reviews candidates for his second term cabinet (and other senior positions) we keep hearing the term "pliable" being tossed about.  In other words, the Commander-in-Chief is looking for individuals who will take orders without question or complaint.  David Petraeus clearly didn't fit that mold. So, with his affair under investigation by the FBI, it wasn't hard for Team Obama to obtain that information and use it when it became convenient. 

And of course, the White House derives one more benefit from Petraeus's departure.  Just hours after his resignation was announced, the Administration revealed that the former director will not testify during Congressional hearings on Benghazi next week.  With a key player unavailable, it becomes that much more difficult to determine what happened when our consulate was attacked.  We can only wonder if Representative Mike Rogers (chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) would pursue a Congressional subpoena to compel Petraeus to appear.  But with the GOP licking its wounds after Tuesday's elections--and new demands for bi-partisanship--the White House is betting that Rogers won't press the issue.  So, valuable testimony will be lost as Congress tries to get to the bottom of Benghazi.

In any case, Petraeus is gone and selection of the next CIA Director will likely be based on political connections, rather than demonstrated expertise.  Petraeus was anything but a great DCI; as a consumer of intelligence, he knew the basics of the business, but had no experience in running an intel bureaucracy, much less reworking it for the challenges that lie ahead.  Still, he's probably better than the person who will follow him at Langley, illustrating yet another danger from Mr. Obama's re-election victory. 
***
ADDENDUM:  Later reporting indicates that Petraeus's affair was under investigation by the FBI as a potential security risk.  That's significant because it indicates that the CIA Director's indiscretion was widely known.  Put another way: FBI counter-intelligence agents had to brief their bosses, who (in turn) briefed the Director, who provided updates to the Attorney General, Eric Holder.  From Eric's lips to Obama's ear, as one might say.  Additionally, the FBI agents kept their CIA counterparts in the loop, as a matter of professional courtesy and potential damage assessments.  So, there are plenty of people at Langley who probably caught wind of the director's problems, and were preparing to drop the bomb when Petraeus stepped down.

One final note: former Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra (who knows as much about intel as anyone in Washington) tweeted this evening that the Petraeus mess will "get much worse..more here than meets the eye."

We shall see. 

                   

 

[Retired AF Guy]

More musings from In from the Cold from today:

The Petraeus Plot Thickens
It's been barely 24 hours since CIA Director David Petraeus resigned, after admitting he engaged in an extra-marital affair.  But the episode is already metastasizing in to a major sex and political scandal, positioned at the intersection of personal indiscretion, election-year politics and September 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.  Among the recent developments:

- Questions as to Why the FBI Was Involved.  Various media accounts suggest the bureau was looking into Petraeus's relationship with biographer Paula Broadwell for several months.  That revelation is somewhat surprising; as former CIA operative Robert Baer told CNN's Piers Morgan last night, he knew of "four or five" agency directors who carried on affairs during their tenure at Langley.  Mr. Baer may be engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but one thing is clear.  Those other escapades never (apparently) attracted the attention of the FBI, despite the potential blackmail threat.

So why was the FBI involved?  One of the bureau's primary missions is domestic counter-intelligence, ferreting out enemy moles, spy rings and and other activities that may jeopardize national security (the CIA is responsible for counter-intelligence outside our borders).  Apparently, there was something about the affair that caught the FBI's attention, and with it, the attention of the Obama White House.  With the administration "in the loop," they had a trump card that could be played against Petraeus at a time of their choosing.  With the director scheduled to testify before Congress next week, Team Obama found its moment.  As we noted in a previous post, the possibility that the White House torpedoed General Petraeus is quite likely.

- Who is the Second Woman?  The Wall Street Journal reported late Saturday that the FBI probe began after a second women (who lives in Florida) complained about harassing e-mails she received from Ms. Broadwell, inquiring about her relationship with the general.  Once again, we find the feds' response rather interesting.  Thousands of harassing e-mails are sent across the web each day, yet few receive any attention from law enforcement.  Of course, e-mails that involve the CIA Director would certainly raise the ante, as would those involving a second individual at the upper levels of defense or intelligence.  The "other woman" doesn't appear to be an ordinary "civilian," since the feds promptly acted on her complaint, and launched a full-scale investigation.

- What About the Vetting Process? Many have expressed surprise that Petraeus's affair wasn't discovered during his confirmation process as CIA Director.  But the fact is, General Petraeus received only a cursory check as he retired from the Army and moved to Langley.  As a senior military commander, Petraeus already had access to the nation's most sensitive secrets, and investigators had decades of security clearance investigations and updates to draw upon.  On the surface, David Petraeus looked remarkably clean and since he didn't disclose the affair at the time of his confirmation, there was nothing in his background check to arouse suspicions.  And, as former FBI agent Gary Aldrich observed during the Clinton years, greater latitude is given to political appointees in terms of past misdeeds and questionable behavior.  But the general failed to report his affair--for rather obvious reasons--so it remained a secret until the FBI began its probe.

- What Does This Have to Do With Benghazi?  In a word, plenty.  As we've noted previously, Petraeus's sudden departure may prevent him from testifying about what happned in Libya on the night of September 11th, at the very time Congress is trying to get to the bottom of the mess.  The CIA will still send someone to the Hill this week, but it's unclear if the acting director was actively involved in the decision-making on that fateful evening.  And, if Petraeus (and the administration) choose to fight or ignore a Congressional subpoena, we may never learn what he did during the attacks on our consulate and safe house.  As Ralph Peters observed the other day, the timing of Petraeus's departure is far too convenient.  With the White House aware of Petraeus's affair (through the FBI and attorney general Holder), they could afford to keep him on the job--and articulating the "video" version of Benghazi--until it became convenient to cut him loose.

So what comes next? The hearings on Capitol Hill will go forward, but the narrative has changed, and that's by design.  Questions about what happened in Libya have now been superseded by a good, old-fashioned sex scandal.  The media is already looking for the second woman, and the sex angle will drive coverage for the next few weeks.

Meanwhile, the issue of Benghazi will fade into the background; Congressional Democrats will likely accept lame excuses offered by the administration, DoD and the intel community, while the public learns every excruciating detail of David Petraeus's extra-marital affairs.  Indeed, the sex angle will become the prism through which many Americans view the Benghazi scandal; the emerging meme will go something like this: David Petraeus was too busy with his affairs to pay attention to the growing threat to our personnel in Libya.  Connect a few more dots, and it's easy to see the former CIA Director becoming a scapegoat for the loss of four Americans in Benghazi.

And that too, will be by design.

       

Again, re-produced under the Fair Dealings provions of the Copyright Act.                     

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The third, and (so far) latest musings from the "In from the Cold" website on the Petraeus affair.

  Who Knew? (Petraeus Scandal Edition)

The sexual affair that forced the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus was one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, or at least that's what The New York Times would have us believe.

In a report published yesterday, the paper said that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia had a discussion about the matter with an FBI official in October.  The Times' implication is clear: leaders on both sides of the Congressional aisle were aware of Petraeus's misdeeds, but said nothing with the election looming.

But, as with many accounts offered up by the NYT, you need to read a little further to get to the gist of the story; here's a CNN account of the latest twist, based on the paper's original article:

[Cantor spokesman] Doug Heye said the Congressman had a conversation with the whistleblower about the affair and the national security concerns involved in the matter (emphasis ours).

The New York Times reported Saturday that on October 31, Cantor's chief of staff phoned the FBI to inform the agency about the call between the Congressman and the FBI official.  The Times reported Cantor learned of the whistleblower through Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Washington.

A spokesman for Reichert told CNN Sunday that the Times article was accurate, but that the Congressman had no further comment on his involvement in the case.

The key word, obviously, is whistleblower.  Why did an FBI official approach Congressman Reichert when the bureau had been investigating the Petraeus matter for months?  Why didn't the official simply raise his concerns internally?

One possibility is the official was concerned about how the probe was being handled, and feared recrimination if he or she voiced their objections at the bureau.  Congressman Reichert does not serve on the House Intelligence Committee, but is co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus and was sheriff of King County, Washington before being elected to Congress.  It's rather curious that Reichert referred the matter to Cantor; perhaps he thought the matter was so serious that (a) Congressional leadership needed to hear the the whistleblower's story, and (b) the FBI would pay more attention if the concern was voiced by the majority leader and not an "ordinary" member of the House.

The timing of Mr. Cantor's involvement is equally interesting.  Both the Washington Post and the NYT confirm that the majority leader contacted the bureau in late October, a little more than a week before the presidential election.  By that time (according to earlier reports), the investigation had been underway for several months.  Was the FBI official that approached Congressman Reichert worried that the bureau was about to sweep the affair under the rug, or was it a set-up, aimed at creating "bi-partisan" knowledge of the matter, less than two weeks before Petraeus's affair would become public knowledge?

Here's another reason to keep the Cantor timeline in mind: the same Washington Post account insists that both the President and the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, did not learn of the investigation until election night:
The notification came Tuesday evening, while polls were still open in an election that would return President Obama to office for four more years.

"Director Clapper learned of the situation from the FBI on Tuesday evening around 5 p.m.," a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "In subsequent conversations with Director Petraeus, Director Clapper advised Director Petraeus to resign." The official said Clapper has been fully briefed on the FBI investigation and has not called for his office or CIA to conduct a follow-up probe or damage assessment, indicating Clapper does not see the case as a security threat.
The official would not address why the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and others were not notified earlier of the FBI investigation and its link to Petraeus. The emerging details suggest Petraeus was not involved in the decision to notify the White House that he had been ensnared in an FBI probe. Instead, it was Clapper who told the White House late Wednesday.
A senior administration official defended the decision not to notify the president earlier, saying staffers "needed to get their arms around" the matter before briefing Obama, who had returned from his election trip to Chicago on Wednesday night.

So, in other words, the nation's highest-ranking intelligence officer and the commander-in-chief didn't learn of the Petraeus investigation until Tuesday night?  Call that one highly implausible, to say the least.

Lest we forget, the probe into the CIA Director's activities began over concerns that his e-mail had been hacked, and sensitive information might have been compromised.  Yet, neither the FBI Director or his boss, the attorney general, saw any need to notify the DNI or the President?  If that's the case, then Eric Holder and Robert Muller should be fired immediately for gross incompetence.

Of course, Mr. Holder is no stranger to controversy, or putting his department in the midst of a political imbroglio.  If the "Fast and the Furious" scandal is any indication, Mr. Holder knew about the Petraeus affair long before the final stages of the presidential campaign--and so did the White House.  Mr. Mueller, on the other hand, is well-regarded in Washington and has done a credible job running the FBI; given his track record, it's difficult to envision the bureau conducting a probe of General Petraeus without Mueller's knowledge.  In fact, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that Mr. Holder was aware of the investigation "for several months."  That means that Mr. Mueller was in the loop as well. 

If the "who knew" (and when) timeline already seems a bit shaky, one thing is clear: David Petraeus will not be testifying before Congress on the Benghazi scandal anytime soon.  Appearing on ABC's This Week, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss (the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee) said General Petraeus will "eventually" testify on the matter, but he is not expected to appear during closed-door hearings this week.  "He's trying to put his life back together and that's what he needs to focus on," Chambliss said.  The committee chairman, Senator Diane Feinstein of California, offered similar thoughts on CBS's Face the Nation.

That puts Republicans in a rather inconvenient position.  If Petraeus doesn't testify soon, the investigation loses steam and it may prove impossible to sort out what happened at Benghazi.  But if they subpoena the former CIA Director, they will lose the public relations battle, viewed as "harassing" a military hero at a low point in his life.  And rest assured, the White House is shrewdly calculating that Congressional Republicans--one week after a major electoral defeat--won't pressure Petraeus to testify.

If it all seems a little pat, give yourself a gold star and move to the head of the class.  It's evident that many in the administration don't want General Petraeus appearing before Congress in the near future.  And one reason was provided, strangely enough, by the CIA Director's former paramour, Paula Broadwell.  Israel National News reporter Gil Ronen was (apparently) the first journalist to discover a lecture Ms. Broadwell delivered at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26th.

Broadwell's address, part of an annual alumni seminar, have been posted at YouTube.  Beginning at 34:52 into her remarks, Broadwell answers a question concerning General Petraeus and the Benghazi incident.  She affirms the CIA Director was aware of requests for assistance from American personnel on the ground, then adds a couple of tantalizing details: first, the CIA was holding two Libyan prisoners at the Benghazi annex, which was attacked after the consulate fell.  That certainly provides another rationale for the assault on the annex.

To our knowledge, no one has previously acknowledged the presence of Libyan prisoners at that facility.  That sort of information would come from someone in a position to know--say, the CIA Director.  It also suggests that the affair between Broadwell and Petraeus did not end (as originally reported) when the retired general took over the agency in 2011.  Divulging that type of "insider" information indicates that Petraeus and Broadwell were in regular contact through the attack in Benghazi and discussed events that transpired on the night of September 11th.  Yet, the FBI claims that national security wasn't jeopardized by their relationship.  Based on the prisoners claim, it sounds like Congressional Republicans should add one more name to their witness list--Paula Broadwell.

In her Denver speech, Ms. Broadwell also revealed that besieged CIA operatives in Benghazi made a specific request for a "command in-extremis force."  These elite units, assigned to every regional command, consist of Delta Force operators and other special forces personnel.  One of their specialties is providing quick reaction assistance to American facilities under attack.

Why is that nugget so important?  According to the official Pentagon timeline, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (and other senior officials) discussed the deployment of SF assets from Croatia and the United States to Benghazi, if violence flared anew.  The discussions took part between midnight and 2 am (Benghazi time) on September 12th.  The in-extremis force is never mentioned, assuming it is not the unit that was training in Croatia at that time.

And that, in turn, leads to another report that has been making the rounds since the Benghazi incident occurred.  Some in military circles claim there was a sharp disagreement between officials in Washington and General Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. Africa Command.  Libya is part of AFRICOM's geographic region, and the "in-extremis" force that would have been dispatched belonged to General Ham.  The CINC reportedly wanted to send forces to Benghazi, but was told to stand down by his superiors in Washington.  We should note that these claims have been sharply denied by the Pentagon.  It was also announced late last month that General Ham will be leaving his post in March 2013, well ahead of schedule. DoD spokesmen told the Washington Times the leadership change was in the works well before Benghazi, though Ham's tenure will be shorter than other MAJCOM leaders.

"Curiouser and curiouser," as Lewis Carroll's Alice once observed.  This much we know: the Petraeus scandal--and its connection to events in Benghazi--won't magically disappear, as much as the Obama Administration might prefer.  General Petraeus is going through a rough patch right now--completely of his own making--but that doesn't negate his obligation to testify before Congress.  Republicans in the House and Senate should demand that he appear this week, and issue a subpoena, if necessary.  The families of four dead Americans deserve that much.

Re-produced under the provisions under the Copyright Act.

 

[cupper]

In response to the identity of "the other woman" the Washington Post is reporting that it is a woman named Jill Kelly.

In one story she was identified as the State Department's Liaison with JSOC, however that reference seems to have disappeared from subsequent Post articles, however other web sources carry the JSOC reference.

She is now being identified as an unpaid volunteer working at McDill.

 

[Infanteer]

From SNL:

David Patraeus had an affair with the author of his biography entitled "All In".  The original working title, before things really progressed, was "Just the Tip".

 

[OldSolduer]

Now another general is being investigated.

Burn the witches!

 

[GAP]

Now another general is being investigated.

Burn the witches!

Maybe the US is just downsizing to meet budget requirements........should Canada follow their example?

 

[tomahawk6]

USMC GEN Allen is now under the gun. This brings a new meaning to military access. By the way he was supposed to be the next SACEUR,but now the nomination is on hold. I suspect Allen will retire instead - if he didnt violate the UCMJ which now seems a possibility.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15119872-emails-on-coming-and-goings-of-petraeus-other-military-officials-escalated-fbi-concerns

By Michael Isikoff and Bob Sullivan
NBC News

New in this version: FBI search Paula Broadwell's home Monday night; officials say the FBI agent who worked with Jill Kelley, the Tampa, Fla. woman who received anonymous emails from Broadwell, was dismissed from case because he became obsessed with Kelley.

Updated at 11:36 p.m. ET: “Menacing” anonymous emails that launched the FBI investigation which ultimately brought down CIA Director David Petraeus contained references to the “comings and goings” of high-level U.S. military officials, raising concerns that someone had improperly gained access to sensitive and classified information, a source close to the recipient tells NBC News.

The first email sent anonymously to Jill Kelley, the Tampa, Fla., woman who reported the threatening emails to the FBI, in May referred to Kelley socializing with other generals in the Tampa area and suggested it was inappropriate and should stop, according to the source close to Kelley, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity.

After Kelley alerted the FBI, agents began pursuing it as a possible case of cyber harassment or stalking. "The thought was she was being followed," the source said.

The anonymous emails continued -- sent from multiple alias accounts -- and some later ones in the sequence contained references to Petraeus, though not by name, the source said.

What most alarmed Kelley and the FBI, the source said, were references to "the comings and goings" of high-level generals from the U.S. Central Command, which is based at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, and the U.S. Southern Command, as well as Petraeus -- including events that were not on any public schedule. This raised the question as to whether somebody had access to sensitive -- and classified -- information.

Moreover, the sender of the emails had "covered her tracks pretty well," the source said.

Multiple government and law enforcement officials have told NBC News that FBI agents traced the emails to Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ biographer. In the course of the investigation, the agents also discovered emails between Petraeus and Broadwell that were indicative of an extramarital affair, they said.

The source close to Kelley said that she had never met Broadwell and had no idea who she was. The source also stressed that Kelley has been active in multiple social events in the Tampa area and is purely a social friend of the Petraeus family.

Meanwhile, it has come to light that the FBI agent contacted by Kelley about the emails she received from Broadwell was removed from the case. According to officials, the agent’s supervisors said he had become infatuated with Kelley and had sent her shirtless photos of himself.

The FBI remains involved in the case, however. On Monday evening, plain-clothed FBI agents arrived at Broadwell’s home in Dilworth, N.C. around 9 p.m. Monday night for what a senior law enforcement official called a “consensual search.” The official said the search is not a raid and “not a game changer.”

Rather, the official said that the FBI is being thorough as it finishes its investigation into Broadwell and whether she violated cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying laws.

The investigation of Petraeus has concluded. Law enforcement sources tell NBC News that Petraeus is not under investigation and that they don't expect their inquiry will result in criminal charges.

The search of Broadwell's home is not expected to yield information that would lead to charges against her, the official said. At the house, agents did not respond when reporters asked for their affiliation, although WCNC in Charlotte, N.C. confirmed they were with the FBI.

NBC News has been unable to reach Broadwell for comment.

The new information offers clues about how federal investigators could connect a handful of anonymous emails to Broadwell, a trained intelligence officer who spent years working with some of the most secretive agencies in the world.

Federal officials who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity on Monday said it took agents a while to figure out the source. They did that by finding out where the messages were sent from -- which cities, which Wi-Fi locations in hotels. That gave them names, which they then checked against guest lists from other cities and hotels, looking for common names.

That led them to Broadwell, they said, noting that the pattern coincided with her travel to promote her book.

Finding the location from which the emails emanated would not have been difficult, experts say.

Some webmail services, including Yahoo and Microsoft's Outlook.com, send user IP addresses across the Web with every note, according to privacy researcher Chris Soghoian. Those IP addresses can be used to track the physical location of a computer user connected to the Internet, sometimes without the help of an Internet service provider.

Broadwell had used a Yahoo account publicly in the past. If she used a new, fake Yahoo account for some of those anonymous emails, agents would have had an easy time gathering a list of IP addresses from the threatening emails Kelley provided to them. And even if she had used Gmail or another service that doesn't "leak" IP information, an FBI agent could have obtained such information by calling Google with a subpoena, the experts said.

Once there was evidence to link Broadwell to the emails, agents would have had little trouble proving probable cause and getting a warrant under the provisions of the Stored Communications Act, which would allow them to access any emails sent or received during the prior 180 days. Agents could also have sought a wiretap order and monitored Broadwell’s email in real time, though wiretaps are more challenging to obtain, and there is no indication that agents took that step.

Soghoian said the successful cyberhunt for Broadwell shows anonymity is much harder to preserve than many Internet users realize.

"We see this again and again. We saw it with the Anonymous (hacker) arrests last year.  The lesson for the rest of us here us you have to go through a lot of steps to maintain anonymity, and you only have to screw up once," said Soghoian. "The FBI was able to pierce the veil of anonymity even for someone who's been trained. The government only has to get one clue. You have to be successful 100 percent of the time (when trying to hide)."

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Patraeus was, apparently, a favourite of the intellectual right in America, even touted, by some, presidential material.

Folks like Max Boot have gone so far as to describe him as a "great" general - when challenged on "great" he has, in fairness, backed away.

But it illustrates a problem we face today: defining "great."

George G Marshall was "great," by any historical standards; in the pantheon of American leadership Omar Bradley, Chster Nimitz and Matthew Ridgway were "great," too. But David Patraeus? Great?

Gen Patraeus was a very fine officer, smart, aggressive, and, and, and ... but his primary skills were on a par with, say, Maxwell Taylor, who hardly merited the designation of "great."

It can be argued that modern, 21st century war doesn't provide the stage that, say, Nimitz, Wavell, Bradley, Slim, Ridgway and our own Murray used to demonstrate their strategic or tactical brilliance, their moral courage, determination and their leadership skills, and, maybe, "great" leaders only emerge, as President Ronald Reagan put it, when speaking of Ridgway, "Heroes come when they're needed; great men step forward when courage seems in short supply."

My  :2c: is that David Patraeus was a good officer who was, no doubt, a highly political general who courted the press (Rick Hillier, anyone?); is that why he is considered, by some, to be "great?" But he made a tragic* error, perhaps fortunately, for his supporters, before he rose too far.


-----
* Tragic in the way that Euripides might have described

 

[tomahawk6]

David Patraeus was, apparently, a favourite of the intellectual right in America, even touted, by some, presidential material.

Folks like Max Boot have gone so far as to describe him as a "great" general - when challenged on "great" he has, in fairness, backed away.

But it illustrates a problem we face today: defining "great."

George G Marshall was "great," by any historical standards; in the pantheon of American leadership Omar Bradley, Chster Nimitz and Matthew Ridgway were "great," too. But David Patraeus? Great?

Gen Patraeus was a very fine officer, smart, aggressive, and, and, and ... but his primary skills were on a par with, say, Maxwell Taylor, who hardly merited the designation of "great."

It can be argued that modern, 21st century war doesn't provide the stage that, say, Nimitz, Wavell, Bradley, Slim, Ridgway and our own Murray used to demonstrate their strategic or tactical brilliance, their moral courage, determination and their leadership skills, and, maybe, "great" leaders only emerge, as President Ronald Reagan put it, when speaking of Ridgway, "Heroes come when they're needed; great men step forward when courage seems in short supply."

My  :2c: is that David Patraeus was a good officer who was, no doubt, a highly political general who courted the press (Rick Hillier, anyone?); is that why he is considered, by some, to be "great?" But he made a tragic* error, perhaps fortunately, for his supporters, before he rose too far.


-----
* Tragic in the way that Euripides might have described

Its pretty political to get promoted beyond Major General. He did rise to the rank of General which is quite an accomplishment in itself. He had alot of enemies on the left.I still remember democrat Senators calling him a liar before he had even said a word when he testified to Congress about the surge in Iraq.

 

[Infanteer]

It's like some Stalinesque purge of the Generals or something!

 

[Jed]

USMC GEN Allen is now under the gun. This brings a new meaning to military access. By the way he was supposed to be the next SACEUR,but now the nomination is on hold. I suspect Allen will retire instead - if he didnt violate the UCMJ which now seems a possibility.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15119872-emails-on-coming-and-goings-of-petraeus-other-military-officials-escalated-fbi-concerns

What was that old Navy Toast? " A Bloody War and a Sickly Season " We will have to bring it up to date and toast to " An enraged politically correct public and a sensationalist mainstream media "

 

[tomahawk6]

More like self inflicted careericide. I might add that both Petraeus and Allen are Academy grad's. Ooops my bias is showing. :-X

 

[Journeyman]

It seems like the trend is either giving secrets to the Russians or having sex with attractive younger women.  No requirement for a coin-toss for me.   

 

[GAP]

It seems like the trend is either giving secrets to the Russians or having sex with attractive younger women.  No requirement for a coin-toss for me. 

Don't the Russians have sexy attractive younger women, or are you still attracted to the babushka type...?

 

[Journeyman]

Bitch 

 

[MarkOttawa]

USMC GEN Allen: Not exactly Semper Fi?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Panetta is asking the Senate to delay Gen Allen's confirmation hearing and to speed up GEN Dunford's who will be the next ISAF Commander.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15673

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 889-12
November 12, 2012


Statement by the Secretary of Defense on General John Allen


On Sunday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred to the Department of Defense a matter involving General John Allen, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

Today, I directed that the matter be referred to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for investigation, and it is now in the hands of the Inspector General. I have informed the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The House Armed Services Committee has also been notified.

While the matter is under investigation and before the facts are determined, General Allen will remain Commander of ISAF. His leadership has been instrumental in achieving the significant progress that ISAF, working alongside our Afghan partners, has made in bringing greater security to the Afghan people and in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists. He is entitled to due process in this matter.

In the meantime, I have asked the President - and the President has agreed - to put his nomination on hold until the relevant facts are determined. I have asked both Senators Levin and McCain that the confirmation hearing on General Allen's pending nomination to be Commander of United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe be delayed.

The President has nominated General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, to succeed General Allen at ISAF. I respectfully requested that the Senate act promptly on that nomination.