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 ...
“For me the jury is still out.”
Do you remember hearing or seeing anything about Broadwell’s presence in Afghanistan for the bio research/writing? I think I did but I don’t know if it was Fox or if I read it on FR. The length of time I seem to recall is about 8 months?
So if they were “knocking boots” over there, then obviously they were both subject to the UCMJ at the time.
Anybody else.
Search: Broadwell Afghanistan Patraeus
I see many articles about them spending time together in Afghanistan- some say she was embedded with him (what a term- I know) for a year, others say she made several trips, but yes she did spend considerable time with him working on his biography while he was active duty.
I obviously have no idea when their affair began but quotes in several articles from people that knew them make it sound like they believe the affair was going on then. I am just not so sure the affair only began after he retired. Possible but I am just skeptical.
From what I understand Broadwell may not have been subject to UCMJ, she is a Reserve Officer but if she wasn’t activated at the time/there on orders I am not sure how that works. Although a friend of ours that has been in Iraq and Afghanistan as a contract worker says they are subject to USMJ while working with the military in combat zone- so I guess it depends what her designation was exactly.
Thanks Tammy.
It seems like a lot questions need to be answered.
I would not think that Broadwell would be in Afghanistan without orders. She have to pay for travel and room and board while there on her own.
We’ll see.
I think we will have to pay attention to how this plays out. It is unfolding as quite a “tangled web” as they say.
At this point many here at FR seem to take it for granted that Petraeus is a conservative being picked on by liberals. I am not so sure of that either. Obama did appoint him to CIA- Elizabeth Warren picked Mrs. Petraeus to form/head some panel/committee in her administration that is supposed to concern military families and finance regulations. I just don’t know what to think at this point but this all requires close watching if you ask me.
The story so far is she was there working on his biography, somehow tied to her PhD work- that should be privately funded- by her? Or was someone else footing the bill? Another question that needs to be answered.
Is the whore with the testosterone arms also immune from the military code? I believe she was a Major Whore.
I take it that Obama DID NOT GIVE CROSS BORDER AUTHORITY on 9/11?
It sure does look that way. And it is amazing that all of this stuff is coming out so quickly. Talk about spinning out of control.
I think they messed with the wrong crowd by hanging them out to dry in Benghazi. I wonder if our guesses about the kidnapping scheme are on the money.
Did they lock them in?
I would really love to know what file Petreus uncovered over there at the CIA.
I already knew they were not locked in. The goal of the attackers would be to smoke them out and to take them.
The security person unlocked the grate on the window. So they could get out and not die. They were not locked in. The attackers were locked out. There is a great YouTube video of the known information regarding the compound. FReeper Dave Mellon posted it.
There were terrorists watching the ambassador's movements in Tripoli and they probably had plenty of opportunities to kill him before Sept 11 if they wanted to kill him. So it is possible they wanted to capture him instead.
The atackers were pretty hellbent to go as far as trying to break in the mission building and the annex rather than just destroy it; this suggests they were looking to capture or kill people more than just attacking the structure. Most of the time terrorists seem content to just set off a big bomb and run, but this group invaded, like our embassy in Iran in 1979.
What do you believe was the attackers’ motive?
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.