Broadwell Went Deep: FBI Says Petreaus Adulteress Threatened Another Woman To Stay Away From Her General

(The Hill)  The FBI reportedly happened upon former CIA Director David Petraeus’s extramarital affair while investigating a complaint from a woman close to Petraeus who had received harassing emails from the general’s alleged mistress.

The FBI traced those emails back to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and Petraeus’s biographer, according to news reports. When law enforcement officials delved into her email account, it was apparent Broadwell and Petraeus were engaged in an affair.

The identity of the woman who filed the original complaint has not been disclosed.

Investigators said that when they found a private account linked to Petraeus in correspondence with Broadwell, they were initially concerned the retired four-star general’s account had been hacked and that a security breach had occurred, officials told The Washington Post.

But that was not the case, as the sexual demeanor of the emails pointed to an affair. Investigators approached Petraeus two weeks ago about what they had discovered and told him no criminal charges would be filed, according to The New York Times(more)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Benghazi-Gate, CIA, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Broadwell Went Deep: FBI Says Petreaus Adulteress Threatened Another Woman To Stay Away From Her General

  1. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    Broadwell was harassing and threatening another woman who was interested in Petreaus? Obviously; Petreaus went deep.

    Like

  2. thefirstab says:

    HAHA Knuckle – quite amusing :)
    On the very serious side, what is this, a soap opera? Who cares, she says this, other says blah blah.
    While the Admin. seems to think We the People are stupid or have ADD and will chase the affair story, the core issue is STILL why was there no increased security at Benghazi, why no order to assist and who gave it, and was the real mission to supply arms to “freedom fighters”, whoever that was?

    Like

    • Knuckledraggingwino says:

      I inject humor because this tawdry spectacle is Obama’s ploy to destract from what was going on in Benghazi. The US was knowingly and intentionally supplying arms to the very same jihadists that Bush had been fighting since 9-11. The ultimate goal was to reestablish a Caliphate. The ultimate consequences will be a nuclear strike against the US. The fact that the cammanding General of the African theatre as well as the Admiral cammanding the CBG in the Med and now Petreas revolted against this insane policy confirms just how insane it is.

      My choices at this point are to either attempt to relieve the frustration with crude humor or to start hunting down and systematically exterminating Obama supporters. Which would you have me do?

      Like

  3. 22tula says:

    Officials were concerned with a security breach? That’s rich. It’s a little late to be concerned don’t ya think. Why did the President of the United States, (who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States), pass the baton to someone who did not give the necessary documents to prove that he met the 3 requirements?

    The Three Requirements

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    The President of the United States is not responsible for vetting candidates, but he is responsible for protecting the US Constitution. A birth certificate has nothing to do with vetting. How could it? What history does a newborn have? A Birth Certificate will let us know the age of the candidate and the candidate’s parents.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah110.htm

    All men are created equal, and equal under the law.
    No one is above the law. That includes George W. Bush, Barack Obama and any other government employee.

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    Like

    • Sharon says:

      Officials were concerned with a security breach? That’s rich. It’s a little late to be concerned don’t ya think.

      Yes, indeed. They should beaten about their empty heads with this 24/7/365.

      Like

  4. mooney1el says:

    Could the woman receiving the threatening email be Valerie Jarrett? Perhaps VJ knew about the “affair” and threatened PB with exposure and thus the destruction of Gen. Petreaus.

    And does anyone really think that POTUS didn’t have knowledge well before election day?

    Like

  5. flaladybug says:

    What infuriates me is that it took a SEX SCANDAL to bring the Benghazi massacre to the forefront in the LSM when the REAL SCANDAL has been ignored for weeks….UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE!!!!

    Like

  6. NiceRN says:

    Me thinks this “scandal” is something the admin has been sitting on, just waiting to bring it out right after the election as a diversion from Benghazi. They are banking on (and sadly, they are probably correct) that most people in the nation (doubled-down on stupid, low knowledge citizens who believe the MSM and love reality TV) will hang onto every juicy detail of a sordid affair.

    Like

  7. ottawa925 says:

    Identity of other woman not disclosed? why? is she a minor? If we throw in the General the pot of ppl responsible for the deaths in Benghazi, these ppl should be dishonorably discharged, and all pensions stripped. When you’re goofin with broads instead of paying attention to the position(s) you hold, then you need to be stripped of everything. My guess is military is loaded with top heavy ppl like this.

    Like

  8. marie says:

    So, I still want to know why no one’s asking how Petraeus was allowed to be CIA Director when they give lie detector tests and one of the first questions is about such scandals. It’s clear he was having the affair with her while he was still in the Army. Obama’s admin can’t say, “We didn’t know.”

    Like

  9. marie says:

    Sex scandal or not, the House Committee, under Issa and guys like Gowdy aren’t going down quietly about Benghazi.

    Like

    • apachetears says:

      Yes, and I can understand that a sex scandal can happen to anyone who is a danger to the Obama.

      Like

      • marie says:

        In the America of 2012 I am not so sure there is such a thing as a “sex scandal” anymore. There are stories of sex, of course, but we have gone the way of the Euros even since there wasn’t outrage over what “is” is.

        Like

  10. marie says:

    AP) Feinstein: FBI should have told us about Petraeus
    WASHINGTON

    The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee says she wants to know why the FBI didn’t tell her sooner that agents were investigating an extramarital affair by CIA Director David Petraeus.

    Feinstein tells “Fox News Sunday” that she first learned about the matter from the media late last week. Feinstein says she called Petraeus twice on Friday and was dumbstruck when he acknowledged the affair.

    The California Democrat says the news was “like a lightning bolt.”

    Feinstein says she has now been briefed by the FBI but wants to know why the bureau didn’t notify her sooner because of the national security implications.

    Feinstein says she initially didn’t want President Barack Obama to accept Petraeus’ resignation, but realizes now he had no choice.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Yeah, right, Dianne, Obama and his administration NEVER KNEW BEFORE NOW that he was or had had an affair.
    Yep, protection of THE HALOed one has begun.

    Tell me, (because I think Chris Wallace and the rest of the interviewers NEVER do what Russert did and I can’t bear to watch them), did Wallace not ask Dianne WHY the lie detector test given to candidates for the Director’s job didn’t reveal his affair?

    It did. It had to, and besides, he wouldn’t have lied about it anyway since he knew it wouldn’t disqualify him from getting the job–those saying it would have are crazy. Many agents have already said that it’s common for the adultery no-no not be applied to the higher ups…you’d not have anyone able to serve, otherwise–and others have laughed when it was suggested that other CIA Directors didn’t have paramours.

    Did Chris ask her THAT question?

    Like

  11. apachetears says:

    All the while this keeps BENGHAZI Off the news reports.

    Like

  12. Sharon says:

    I sure hope the left doesn’t think that their “reaction” to this suggests they have morals. Their occasional claims to morality are only a tool to be used for leverage or cover-up.

    Like

  13. marie says:

    Check out the lastest up on Fox’s news site. I am wondering if the “whistleblower” is trying to make the GOP to be the bad guys:
    ___________________________________________________________________

    The FBI’s investigation that led to the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus began with a woman alerting officials about harassing emails from Petraeus’ female biographer, which led agents to uncover an extramarital affair between the director and the author, according to multiple sources.

    Petraeus’ resignation was announced Friday, but new details continue to emerge about how investigators learned about the affair between the former four-star Army general and Paula Broadwell, a West Point graduate.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/11/new-details-in-petraeus-scandal-fbi-whistleblower-talked-first-to-house/#ixzz2Bwp0tKkm

    —————————-
    Edited for length by admin since the link for the article is available.

    Like

  14. CCG says:

    According to Bob Woodward, on Meet the Press this morning, Petraeus went to Libya a week and a half ago.
    ”   It turns out that Petraeus, a week and a half ago went to Tripoli, Libya and conducted his own personal inquiry into Benghazi, interviewed the station chief, actually got the base chief from Benghazi down, interviewed him.  Interviewed the head I think twice of the quick reaction force that was involved in this episode.  So he knows the full story.  I– he has a lot of credibility with Republicans, who as we know are on fire about Benghazi.  And now the acting CIA Director, Mike Morell, is going to have to present that evidence.”

    So Petraeus returns and decides to come clean about his affair, mmmmm….

    Like

    • marie says:

      Woodward is as cowardly as the Powells of the world, however.
      His last book does not butt lick the Prez, even points out that a failure of Obama is his air of superiority (my words), his didactic nature, his inability/or unwillingness to listen to anyone, his disdain for working with the GOP. However, Woodward’s actual words when he went on tv to speak of the POTUS’ “management style,” however, were moderated compared to the way he portrayed POTUS in his book, as if he, like all others, was/afraid of not being invited to any more hotsy-totsy cocktail parties in Georgetown.

      Like

    • Sharon says:

      Woodward is a snake in the grass.

      Like

  15. 22tula says:

    “Cover-up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue”
    Doug Hagmann – November 11, 2012

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50976

    A link was posted in Doug Hagmann’s comment section.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/06/petraeus.cancer/index.html

    “Is this Real Reason…”
    Aaron Klein – November 10, 2012

    http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2012/11/10/is-this-real-reason-for-cia-chiefs-resignation-alleged-gun-running-to-jihadists-could-dwarf-fast-and-furious-scandal/

    Maybe Aaron Klein will have new information tonight.
    Listen Live or Later – Sunday’s 7PM – 9PM EST

    http://www.wabcradio.com/sectional.asp?id=36805

    Like

  16. marie says:

    Listen to John Batchelor’s show tonight.

    Like

  17. marie says:

    If Boehner were actually SMART or TOUGH he’d realize the House now has more leverage than they ever though possible with this mess of a President. However, he’s neither of those things.

    Like

  18. ottawa925 says:

    from foxnews.com

    “A senior military official said the woman is a State Department’s liaison to the military’s Joint Special Operations Command.

    The official identified her as 37-year-old Jill Kelley, in Tampa, Fla., according to the Associated Press.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/11/new-details-in-petraeus-scandal-fbi-whistleblower-talked-first-to-house/#ixzz2Bx5O3gng

    Like

    • ctdar says:

      Distract, distract, distract….fact is to get to be the Director of CIA, Petraeus would have been vetted every which way to Sunday prior and the affair that occurred when he was an acting 4Star General would have been discovered by the Obama administration at the time.
      All roads lead to Benghazi, and the link 22tula mentioned above re secret CIA prison for interrogation is something that sounds very plausible.

      Like

  19. I’m beginning to go with the “outed himself” theory, otherwise he could have simply cited personal reasons and left it at that.

    Like

  20. Mikado Cat says:

    Farsi and Furious, when gun running to Alakada rebels to fight in Syria goes bad.

    Like

  21. See 35 minute mark. This us huge. Cia holding Lybian prisoners at Bengazi:

    Like

  22. dreamerspirit says:

    The Obama administration has touted its successes against the terrorist network, including the death of Osama bin Laden, as signature achievements that argue for President Obama’s reelection. The administration has taken tentative steps toward greater transparency, formally acknowledging for the first time the United States’ use of armed drones.
    Less visible is the extent to which Obama has institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war. Spokesmen for the White House, the National Counterterrorism Center, the CIA and other agencies declined to comment on the matrix or other counterterrorism programs.
    Privately, officials acknowledge that the development of the matrix is part of a series of moves, in Washington and overseas, to embed counterterrorism tools into U.S. policy for the long haul.
    The article also notes that the CIA is seeking to expand its own fleet of armed drones, a development which I find kind of odd and potentially troubling. Do we really want an intelligence agency to have access to its own fleet of armed drones? Shouldn’t that kind of thing be consolidated with the military, where weapons like this ordinary belong, with the CIA providing logistical and intelligence support on an as-needed basis? If nothing else, a development like this suggests that the CIA is going to continue its transformation from an agency primarily dedicated to the gathering of intelligence to a paramilitary organization. Whether that is a good idea or not is something I’ll leave for the experts to ponder, but it strikes me as a mistake.
    Glenn Greenwald, meanwhile, comments on the institutionalization of the “kill list” first implemented by President Obama when he targeted Anwar Al-Awaki:
    The “disposition matrix” has been developed and will be overseen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). One of its purposes is “to augment” the “separate but overlapping kill lists” maintained by the CIA and the Pentagon: to serve, in other words, as the centralized clearinghouse for determining who will be executed without due process based upon how one fits into the executive branch’s “matrix”. As Miller describes it, it is “a single, continually evolving database” which includes “biographies, locations, known associates and affiliated organizations” as well as “strategies for taking targets down, including extradition requests, capture operations and drone patrols”. This analytical system that determines people’s “disposition” will undoubtedly be kept completely secret; Marcy Wheeler sardonically said that she was “looking forward to the government’s arguments explaining why it won’t release the disposition matrix to ACLU under FOIA”.
    This was all motivated by Obama’s refusal to arrest or detain terrorist suspects, and his resulting commitment simply to killing them at will (his will). Miller quotes “a former US counterterrorism official involved in developing the matrix” as explaining the impetus behind the program this way: “We had a disposition problem.”
    The central role played by the NCTC in determining who should be killed – “It is the keeper of the criteria,” says one official to the Post – is, by itself, rather odious. As Kade Crockford of the ACLU of Massachusettsnoted in response to this story, the ACLU has long warned that the real purpose of the NCTC – despite its nominal focus on terrorism – is the “massive, secretive data collection and mining of trillions of points of data about most people in the United States”.
    (…)
    What has been created here – permanently institutionalized – is a highly secretive executive branch agency that simultaneously engages in two functions: (1) it collects and analyzes massive amounts of surveillance data about all Americans without any judicial review let alone search warrants, and (2) creates and implements a “matrix” that determines the “disposition” of suspects, up to and including execution, without a whiff of due process or oversight. It is simultaneously a surveillance state and a secretive, unaccountable judicial body that analyzes who you are and then decrees what should be done with you, how you should be “disposed” of, beyond the reach of any minimal accountability or transparency.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-never-ending-war-on-terror/

    Like

  23. dreamerspirit says:

    I was doing some digging and came across the the above…THE DISPOSITION MATRIX. Perhaps this is old news to all of you, but just was wondering what Patraues’ involvement in this might be? It sounds like a paramilitary operation that the CIA is heavily involved in. Do you think this might have anything to do with why he resigned? I am not buying the affair story.

    Like

  24. stellap says:

    Who is Jill Kelley? Is she the other woman?

    ADD: Apparently a family friend, who received threatening emails from the mistress.

    Like

  25. Sharon says:

    It’s really pathetic that these two supposedly superior beings, graduates of service academies and all, were too stupid to know that e-mails are not secret or private.

    Like

  26. howie says:

    Well this thing stinks. To high heaven. Whew!

    Like

  27. Mikado Cat says:

    What we are guessing at could be wrong, we know NOTHING of the nature or timeline of the emails from anybody, or when the affair was supposed to be happening.

    Don’t chase the rabbits.

    Like

  28. flaladybug says:

    FoThis is “Charlie Wilson’s War” all over again except this time it didn’t take Obumasses Muslim Brothers to turn around and bite him in the ASS!! Just praying Gen. Patreus doesn’t have any sort of “TRAGIC ACCIDENT ” before the hearings!!

    Like

  29. flaladybug says:

    **didn’t take them 20 years** angry typing is bad!!lol

    Like

  30. Ugh says:

    Was watching the nightly news, big story on betrayus, no mention of Lybia or his maybe testimony next week.

    Like

    • dreamerspirit says:

      It is not about the affair. Why do we or anyone other than parties involved care about an affair. Look at Bill Clinton. He had access to everything Top Secret and had multiple liaisons..He never resigned. Look at JFK..Hoover had plenty on his extramarital affairs. JFK never resigned. Patraues was not an elected official so what purpose does his resignation serve? Affair is a red herring…smoke screen…diversion. Not buying it!! The affair was ongoing when he took office as CIA director…Obama knew about it no doubt so why the sudden crisis of conscience? He was told to cite the affairs he as reason for resignation…he had to be publicly destroyed. The question is why would he agree to it? What do they really have on him? Hillary said she tried to reach him night of the attack on the consulate, but he had gone to watch the private Washington screening of the movie Argo. He was not there when the bodies were returned to Andrews Airforce base, nor did he attend the services of former CIA agents Dorgherty or Woods. Is Hillary lying? Was he told not to attend Andrews or the services for the former CIA agents or is truly that aloof about Benghazi incident?

      Like

  31. ottawa925 says:

    On the Chicago home front, illinoispaytoplay.com website has their review of the situation if you care to check: http://illinoispaytoplay.com/

    The part I like:

    “Believing this version requires what one famous politician once called “the willing suspension of disbelief”. We’re supposed to believe:

    •that the FBI either (1) did not discover this indiscretion before Petraeus was appointed to the CIA, or, (2) knew of it then and didn’t considered it a disqualifier for the position;

    •that his resignation has nothing to do with him being scheduled to testify before Congress under oath concerning the death of the four Americans in Benghazi (he previously was not under oath when he addressed a Congressional committee about the episode – that’s important to remember); and,

    •that his marital indiscretion, though not publically known, was sufficient cause for him to pull the plug on his career.

    To buy this account requires not only having fallen off a turnip truck, but then having been run over by a fleet of other turnip trucks.

    There’s a more believable version of this matter being played out inside the Beltway by those who know Petraeus. Here’s how that version runs:

    •Petraeus got caught in a classic “honey trap”;

    •his oath as an Army Officer was to protect and defend the Constitution – marital fidelity isn’t mentioned. If it was, in wartime particularly, there’s be courts martial of field and general grade officers on a daily basis;

    •he toed the administration’s party line when he testified before congress about Benghaziwhile not under oath;

    •testifying under oath is an altogether more serious happening; and,

    •rather than lie under oath about the Benghazi fiasco, Petraeus sprang the honey trap on himself, taking away the leverage that was being used against him by those who sought to force his compliance by threatening to release what they knew about his affair with the honey, Paula Broadwell.

    His marital infidelity was the wrong thing to do. In the end, though, he did a right thing by not violating both his oath as an officer in the United States Army, and the similarly serious oath to tell the truth before Congress, once he is sworn-in.”

    END, but there is more there to read.

    Like

  32. Mikado Cat says:

    Article I read reported that she said in the Denver speech that two people were being held at the CIA annex, and that Patraeus talked to people by phone in Libya the next day.

    Like

  33. Mikado Cat says:

    It never was about a movie.
    Its not about an affair that ended months ago.
    Its about Benghazi and covering up what happened.

    Farsi and Furious.

    Like

    • dreamerspirit says:

      Ok… Agreed. But why cite the affair as reason for resignation? He could have forced Obama’s hand. Simply resigned to seek other interests. He was eyeing Presidential bid at Princeton. He could have called Obama’s bluff and force him to put out the story on the affair. Then it would have looked like Obama had been covering it up until he resigned. So yes, it is about Benghazi and the F & F, but there is more to it then that. Obama forced him to use affair as reason for resignation. Which means they have have something even more dubious on him than an affair…and I don’t mean F&F….Obama is as complicit in that as Patraues. I still wonder if it has anything to do with the Disposition Matrix as well as Benghazi.

      Like

  34. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    Consider the possibility that the affair is a fabrication by Petreus. It gives him a pretext to resign so he can speak candidly and it brings the story back to the front pages.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s