Posted on 11/12/2012 2:49:30 PM PST by texas_mrs
The FBI withheld its findings about Gen. David Petreaus' affair from the White House and congressional leaders because the agency considered them the result of a criminal investigation that never reached the threshold of an intelligence probe, law enforcement sources said today.
The sources said agents followed department guidelines that generally bar sharing information about developing criminal investigations. The FBI is also aware of its history under former director Herbert Hoover of playing politics and digging into the lives of public figures. As one official said, the rules are designed to protect people (both private and elected officials) when negative information about them arises in the course of a criminal investigation that is not a crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“The FBI is also aware of its history under former director Herbert Hoover...”
Was it Herbert, or his brother J. Edgar?
The man who knew too much.
No, no ~ that’s his distant cousin the equally famous “Herbert Heever”
Wow. The White House is tightening the screws. REVENGE!
If this affair was in violation of the UMCJ then why is the FBI involved? Wouldn’t this be the jurisdiction of the Military?
It is not a crime for a civilian to have an affair, but it is a violation of the UMCJ if an active duty Officer does.
So if this does not involve a breach of intelligence, then the FBI should have no jurisdiction to investigate, much less refer for prosecution.
My BS meter is pegged out.
My BS meter is pegged out.
there will be no/no charges, that would open a can of worms....
It’s hard to take journalists seriously when such a moronic error is made.
LLS
He wasn’t a member of the military at the time of the affair. He was an employee of the Federal Government.
The WM who work on base under a different command received Non-Judicial Punishment and was reduced to the Pvt and I believe forfeited some base pay.
As Joe Marine 76 pointed out about an adultery case he handled, it can be handled entirely as a non-judicial punishment. That means it could be as little as a reprimand, a letter, or a loss of pay.
I believe Gen George Casey would have been Petraeus' military superior at the time, but I don't remember exactly. If so, then I'm convinced Casey would have simply recommended over coffee or beer to Gen Petraeus that he quietly retire.
The WM who work on base under a different command received Non-Judicial Punishment and was reduced to the Pvt and I believe forfeited some base pay.
As Joe Marine 76 pointed out about an adultery case he handled, it can be handled entirely as a non-judicial punishment. That means it could be as little as a reprimand, a letter, or a loss of pay.
I believe Gen George Casey would have been Petraeus' military superior at the time, but I don't remember exactly. If so, then I'm convinced Casey would have simply recommended over coffee or beer to Gen Petraeus that he quietly retire.
He wasn’t a member of the military at the time of the affair. He was an employee of the Federal Government.
Are you that gullible? She took 6 trips to A-stan and was photographed sitting next to him on his military aircraft. If he was doing it in the US he most certainly was doing it overseas.
I’m beginning to think the whole affair (no worse than BJC) is a distraction for the MSM, and general public, from the massive voter fraud that is becoming evident.
Adultery is not a federal crime. Anyway, it says that he wasn't the target of the criminal investigation. Presumably, Broadwell was.
Irrelevant to the charge of adultery. If there are additional charges such as violations of operational security, and they are criminal, then they will be pursued separately. The adultery charge would stand or fall on its own.
That's not to say Petraeus didn't divulge classified info, nor even that he didn't do it as a result of an illicit affair, but those charges will still be separate. An affair can be part of the proof presented that explains how Broadwell came into possession of classified info, but I'm thinking that will require a lesser threshhold of proof than proving actual, penetrative adultery.
What are you talking about? I said he wasn’t a member of the MILITARY. Just because he took military transportation doesn’t make him a ‘member of the military.’ Just because he went overseas, doesn’t mean he was a ‘member of the military.’
This is just a lame excuse for the fact that Holder apparently knew early on this summer (before the GOP convention). I think this is why Obama suggested Petraeus as the GOP Vice Presidential nominee; he had his October Surprise lined up.
He wasn’t the VP nominee, so they simply held it back, but then decided they could use it to prevent any Benghazi testimony he might give. Since he’s a completely Obama boy, they probably had nothing to fear...this was just insurance.
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.