This is getting curiouser and curiouser. The Washington Post is reporting that the FBI initiated an investigation into former CIA Director David Peteraeus because his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell, sent threatening emails to a woman close to Petreaus.
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 surfaced, FBI investigators were concerned that the CIA director’s personal e-mail account had been hacked and that national security had been threatened. The officials said further investigation, including FBI interviews with Broadwell and Petraeus, led to the discovery that the two were engaged in an affair.
The identity of the woman who received the e-mails was not disclosed, and the nature of her relationship with Petraeus is unknown. The officials said the woman did not work at the CIA and was not Petraeus’s wife, Holly. The law enforcement officials said the e-mails indicated that Broadwell perceived the other woman as a threat to her relationship with Petraeus.
Attempts to reach Broadwell and her relatives have been unsuccessful, and she has not made a public statement since she was linked with Petraeus on Friday.
All three senior officials who described the impetus for the investigation spoke on the condition that their names be withheld because aspects of the inquiry are ongoing.
Petraeus, a retired four-star Army general who was once seen as a potential presidential candidate, said Friday that he was resigning as CIA chief because he had been involved in an extramarital affair. He has been married for 37 years and has two children.
This narrative directly contradicts another story of the affair which says that Broadwell broke off the relationship
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.
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.
[...]
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.
So, did Broadwell break up with Petreaus who then sent “thousands of emails” presumably asking her to give him another chance? Or did Broadwell become jealous of another woman and threaten her with bodily harm? Is it possible that both narratives are true?
The WaPo story seems self serving to me. It reads like a typical, back door Washington gambit of trying to salvage something of Petreaus’s reputation while making Broadwell out to be some kind of femme fatale. Note also that the description of Broadwell varies wildly between the two narratives.
But Newsmax is hardly the most reliable — or unbiased — news outlet. That story reads like a partisan indictment of Obama for sitting on the bad news of the Petreaus scandal until after the election.
So where are we?
The fact that the story broke so soon after the election might tend to give credence to the Newsmax version of events — at least as it relates to the Obama administration refusing to accept Petreaus’s resignation until Friday. As for the image of a lovesick Petreaus sending more than 20 emails a day to Broadwell over several months, that doesn’t track with what we know of the former Iraq and Afghanistan commander.
Only one thing is certain; whatever additional information Petreaus could have provided to congressional investigators about the CIA response to the Benghazi attack will now be lost due to the former CIA director not being allowed to testify.
A man who would cheat on his wife would cheat on his mistress.
Just sayin’.
Yep, the old saying is that if they’ll cheat with ya, they’ll cheat on ya.
Is there anybody out there who knows how to get some on the side without sending e-mails about it? These folks are the best we have and they do dumb stuff like this?
He didn’t tweet his peter. He’s at least got that.
Good point.
The weirder this gets, the less I believe any of it.
Wow. Paula sounds like that crazy astronaut lady who wore diapers and went to kill her rival in love for the favors of another astronaut.
for a director of intelligence, he sure was a dope.
There’s no fool like an old fool!
We’re missing the point. The key is this sentence here:
“The investigation began last spring.”
That’s something easily confirmed. If that’s true, that the FBI launched an investigation of the CIA Director, then Obamee knew about it six months ago. There is no conceivable way this happens without Obamee knowing.
All the evidence points to Newsmax being correct here. The odds are extremely good that this scumbag sat on this for six months or more to save his ass while leaving the CIA open to blackmail.
Either Obamee knew and should be impeached, or his people are so incompetent he should be forced to resign.
Immediate hearings on this must be held, and impeachment articles drafted as a result. Dereliction of duty as Commander-in-Chief.
Half the country (the “folks” who don’t read blogs like Pajamas or watch Fox) don’t know anything about why Benghazi is a scandal. They just don’t know about it.
I love Dr. Krauthammer’s comment to the effect that now Benghazi is a sex scandal, it will get more attention. Oh that it be so.
Whole thing stinks to high heaven. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/09/lt_col_ralph_peters_on_petraeus_timing_is_just_too_perfect.html
I used to think we couldn’t impeach 0 because then Joe Biden would be Prez. Now I am not so sure. Biden is a buffoon but he is not evil. I think he would do less harm than four more years (I can hardly bear to write it) of 0.
A Joe Biden presidency could save Leno and Letterman. Just imagine!
I go with your 50% of the population that knows nothing of this. We have 4 yrs of cover ups, lies, intentional deceit, procrastination, and various delaying techniques to experience. If whatever happens makes 0bama look bad or in any way tarnishes him it will not be reported in the MSM.
“… former CIA director not being allowed to testify.”
I thought Petraeus was asked to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee but refused. However, he can be subpoenaed to testify. If the Senate won’t, the House will.
The question is whether executive privilege will be invoked, as Holder did in ‘Fast & Furious’.
It was said on Brett Baier last night that John Bolton believes Petraeus could be subpoenaed and thereby forced to testify.
I suspect Petraeus was persuaded that he and his family would be better off if he avoided truthfully testifying about Benghazi by resigning from the CIA for a reason no one could blame on anyone but him. So the ancient history of a brief affair was used as the reason for the resignation. As for all this business about a hacked email account and some other woman being threatened or Petraeus sending a mistress 20 lovesick emails a day, well, I think those details were fabricated to make the affair look more like a valid reason for resigning. This is all part of the Benghazi cover up.
Well he’s already admitted to the affair(s) which no one really cares about (this party can’t whip out the character matters theme) so none of that changes his knowledge of events. The CIA claims they did not give an order to stand down, was that a lie? Doubtful. Even if that was the case then the issue of why these men had to die would be somewhat resolved. Petraeus has knowledge of events, he must be questioned although there is a high assumption he will lie for no ones benefit, except O. As for the possibility of a threat of a personal nature he is in the drivers seat at this point. Mention one name and a whole new Pandora’s box is opened.
Or am I missing something.
This has an old, familiar stench of Axelrod.
“a woman close to Petraeus”? Or in other words, one mistress threatening another mistress.
This whole expose is exactly what the last paragraph of this story states….this is to keep Peteraeus from testifying about what he knew and WHEN he knew it about Benghazi. The Chi-Town Shuffle….
The TV report today suggested the threatening message came from Petraeus’ *official* email account, can you imagine getting something like that from cia.gov?
I’ll assume this is just typical MSM garble, but I’m really wondering how Broadwell would even ever get his gmail password. Did he give it to her, why would he do that? Did she just guess it, or maybe look over his shoulder? Did he access it from her computer and she had a keylogger on? Did she install a keylogger on his workstation?
The problem is there are just NO good answers here.
Maybe the best answer is that Broadwell would have never really had access to any of his accounts, but used a spoof account to send the threats.
Petreaus took Obama’s lead to campaign from his loins literally.