Skip to comments.Video: Say, why would the FBI be investigating a CIA director, anyway?
Posted on 11/13/2012 9:46:23 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Piers Morgan asked a pretty good question of former CIA agent Robert Baer on his show last night, and Baer is just as perplexed as Morgan. David Petraeus suddenly resigned yesterday after the FBI discovered an extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell, but does the FBI routinely investigate the director of the CIA? Baer tells Morgan, There is something going on here, apart from the sexual peccadilloes. Or could it be as simple as the old adage that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
In addition, why was the FBI, a domestic police agency, involved in an overseas terrorism case?
That has been explained. Kelly went to the FBI about embarrassing EMAILs from Broadwell.
I mean harassing EMAILs.
Patraeus was going to testify exactly on what happened in Libya. Obama and his minions got to him, but perhaps he will have the last laugh since he went public.
I’m wondering if anyone at the FBI investigates our president?
The bottom line is this. Will he do the manly thing and now tell the truth or cower?
The whole story about Libya is dirty. I suspect it includes gun running for the Syrian rebels thru Turkey and a whole lot of other things.
But everyone wants to know the answer to one question. Did our president make a decision to do nothing in the face of the attack, sacrificing our people, to assure his reelection?
Because the United States is no longer under the rule of law, it is under the rule of Ubama, where anything goes as long as the net result is Ubama gets what he wants.
Maybe investigating security breaches that violate federal law? I think that would fall under FBI jurisdiction.
Why not? CIA employees are Federal employees. Why should they be exempt? It’snot like the CIA has any sort of reputation for ethical conduct. I’d bet that a thorough independent investigation would land a sizable proportion of CIA employees in jail.
Of course you could say that for any govt agency.
or even harassing emails?
The FBI has a counterterrorist branch. My understanding is that part of the post-9/11 investigation revealed that the communication and investigation “wall” between CIA counterterrorism and FBI counterterrorism created a weakness ... particularly when overseas terrorists become a domestic threat.
My understanding is that the FBI is now more involved in overseas counterterrorism than they used to be.
The FBI got involved first, because Kelly has a friend in the FBI, and she told him about this "cyberstalking" crap. Following that, "cyberstalking" is within the FBI's jurisdiction. Likely not solely within the FBI's jurisdiction, but still, it is something the FBI is allowed to pursue, under 47 USC 223, Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications.
When the FBI got involved, it was not investigating Petraeus, at all.
The FBI should have been investigating a nominee to any Cabinet-level office...what amazes me is how deep the investigation was...one has to wonder if red flags were going up at the CIA and what, if anything, the CIA was telling its new boss about that investigation.
Personally, this whole thing reeks of a trap set by Chicago thugs....a very powerful and competent potential political adversary is nominated to a high-level post, at about that sametime or just a little before he is introduced to a woman who has never written a book before, to do a biography of an important figure in the last decade with respect to our war againt terror...and they just “happen” to have an affair? No....Obama’s cronie set a trap, and the General was stupid enough to allow himself to get ensared in it. What was allmthis is for though....what was the grand plan that they are now covering up?
When the emails involve a high official and suggest he could be open to blackmail by unknown people(s), yes.
I meant harassing EMAILs. I blame my spell checker.
And if they are bad enough yes they do.
Perhaps Petraeus told the the White House he wouldn’t lie under oath to cover for them and they decided, with the help of the MSM, to destroy his reputation in the hopes of destroying his credibility.
Everything is a smoke screen to cover the Marxist’s failed Benghazi role.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.