David Petraeus Steps down from D/CIA

Get out of David's snatch people.

In retrospect, how was Patraeus qualified to run the CIA? Can't they get an intelligence expert?

DSGamer wrote:

In retrospect, how was Patraeus qualified to run the CIA? Can't they get an intelligence expert?

As a prior CENTCOM commander, he had a far more intimate knowledge of the spy business then few other American citizens.

Isn't there another thread for this? Must you pollute every thread with this?

Continuing on, I heard this morning that the situation is "complicated" by the fact that she has some kind of security clearance because of her NG position.

Seems to me that this Jill Kelly and her husband are a couple of social whores. Now all their attention whoring is getting their "charity" investigated because it looks like they spend a LOT of money on frivolous stuff.

Must you pollute every thread with this?

The FBI tapped this guy's email because an FBI agent wanted to get in some woman's pants.

How can you consider that 'pollution'? How much more relevant could that article be?

When a horny FBI agent can bring down a senior government figure, there's a big problem. When an FBI agent can do that to anyone, there's a big problem.

Bear wrote:

Isn't there another thread for this? Must you pollute every thread with this?

Continuing on, I heard this morning that the situation is "complicated" by the fact that she has some kind of security clearance because of her NG position.

Seems to me that this Jill Kelly and her husband are a couple of social whores. Now all their attention whoring is getting their "charity" investigated because it looks like they spend a LOT of money on frivolous stuff.

I would say it's relevant but hopefully stays on topic. In other words lets not take a trip down the general path of security state stuff, but it is interesting and relevant to consider the overreach by the FBI. To me that and the flagrant disregard for security are the two biggest stories here.

Bear wrote:

Isn't there another thread for this? Must you pollute every thread with this?

Continuing on, I heard this morning that the situation is "complicated" by the fact that she has some kind of security clearance because of her NG position.

Seems to me that this Jill Kelly and her husband are a couple of social whores. Now all their attention whoring is getting their "charity" investigated because it looks like they spend a LOT of money on frivolous stuff.

There is the Police State thread where this should be discussed fully but that doesn't mean that link Malor provided isn't relevant to the discussion.

The way this was discovered IS VERY chilling. It seems like the only thing stopping the FBI/CIA from knowing every bit of every online interaction you have is that they don't care...yet. But if they do for some reason become interested in you they can just grab everything.

Another way of putting it: by the logic used in this case, if they were investigating me, they could use that as a pretext to tap your email, because you're a contact. We talk online, after all, and it could be a code.

Are you doing anything you'd rather other people didn't know about? Some of us have lives of unimpeachable splendor, but the fundamental truth of an adversarial justice system, like ours, is that prosecutors are paid professionals at misconstruing evidence. Do you really want one ruffling through your email because they think I might have done something wrong?

Should David Petraeus have had his email tapped because a woman he's schtupping sent some vaguely derisive letters to another woman that an FBI agent wanted to screw?

Bear wrote:

Seems to me that this Jill Kelly and her husband are a couple of social whores.

If anyone's keeping score, Kelley has killed two careers so far.

One is her FBI agent friend (who sent her the shirtless pics *before* she asked him to look into the "threatening" emails).

The other is Marine Gen. John R. Allen, who is currently running everything in Afghanistan and who was nominated for the position Supreme Allied Commander Europe position. I say was because that nomination has since been rescinded. Allen is in trouble because he exchanged some 30,000 emails with Kelley over two years, some of which were "potentially inappropriate" and "flirty." According to some sources, those emails were "the equivalent of phone sex over email."

Allen is in trouble because he exchanged some 30,000 emails with Kelley over two years, some of which were "potentially inappropriate" and "flirty."

30k over 2 years (2x365)
so 30,000/730 = 41.095 emails a day

How does the General in charge of Afghanistan have time for that?

fangblackbone wrote:
Allen is in trouble because he exchanged some 30,000 emails with Kelley over two years, some of which were "potentially inappropriate" and "flirty."

30k over 2 years (2x365)
so 30,000/730 = 41.095 emails a day

How does the General in charge of Afghanistan have time for that?

Some people treat the ease of access to email (through phones and tablets) like just another form of texting, really. And if they're "exchanged", maybe that number includes the ones both to and from her. It's not that unusual of a number.

OG_slinger wrote:
Bear wrote:

Seems to me that this Jill Kelly and her husband are a couple of social whores.

If anyone's keeping score, Kelley has killed two careers so far.

One is her FBI agent friend (who sent her the shirtless pics *before* she asked him to look into the "threatening" emails).

The other is Marine Gen. John R. Allen, who is currently running everything in Afghanistan and who was nominated for the position Supreme Allied Commander Europe position. I say was because that nomination has since been rescinded. Allen is in trouble because he exchanged some 30,000 emails with Kelley over two years, some of which were "potentially inappropriate" and "flirty." According to some sources, those emails were "the equivalent of phone sex over email."

Four, if that was really the catalyst for finding out about Petraeus and Broadwell.

What the hell? Typhoid Mary of the clandestine community?

I thought it was 30k of pages of emails. Subtle difference.

Nevin73 wrote:

I thought it was 30k of pages of emails. Subtle difference.

Ah, you are correct. My mistake.

Hmm what would be significant would be are these unique pages because if this is just replying back and forth the email chain, the pages can add up quickly. If it is unique pages, well it just can't be because nobody can write 41 pages a day except maybe the Steven King's of the world...

Considering their jobs and security clearances, Petraeus and Broadwell absolutely should expect their email to be looked over at the sign of anything slightly irregular.

I'd like to see the impact of the original FBI agent's actions on his career before going to far in limiting their ability to investigate.

When I was a manager with Walgreens, I had full access to all pharmaceutical records of all patients. Customers expected me to be able to use them to serve them. But if I was accessing them showing them to anyone else without a justified reason, I'd be fired, as i saw happen to employees that would gawk at any celebrities they could find.

We know the agent was taken off the case, and I bet he will no longer be with the bureau when this is over. The only person in this case that had a reasonable expectation of privacy was Kelley, and it appears she surrendered that herself.

So, no, I don't believe this is a good example to use for the horrors of our surveillance state.

OG_slinger wrote:

If anyone's keeping score, Kelley has killed two careers so far.

Wait, how has Kelly killed any careers? It's not like she was blackmailing the FBI agent into sending shirtless pictures, nor was General Allen writing emails with a gun to his head. As with David Patraeus I'd say if their careers die it was assisted suicide, at best.

bnpederson wrote:

Wait, how has Kelly killed any careers? It's not like she was blackmailing the FBI agent into sending shirtless pictures, nor was General Allen writing emails with a gun to his head. As with David Patraeus I'd say if their careers die it was assisted suicide, at best.

She's at the nexus of a lot of questionable behavior by several people and, right now, it seems to be primarily sexual in nature.

She didn't blackmail the FBI agent. But she also didn't find his behavior of sending shirtless pics to a married women (namely her) so wildly inappropriate as to cut off contact with him. Instead, he's the one she reached out to investigate Broadwell (and, apparently, was persuasive enough to have an investigation opened even though it failed to meet the FBI's own standards).

And, no there wasn't a gun to Allen's head. But neither was there a gun to Kelley's head when she replied (if he was actually the person to initiate the exchange).

I don't buy the seductress argument for a second. The people who are actually employed are still ultimately responsible for their own careers, regardless of the temptation Kelly may or may not have offered them.

OG_slinger wrote:

If anyone's keeping score, Kelley has killed two careers so far.

Before we excoriate her, consider that location data from a Words with Friends opponent of hers was valuable.

Pretty scary article. Once the door was open, it appears that they could do a RICCO style investigation. Jill Kelley is obviously full of herself and did not know the Pandora's box she was opening when she had her pet FBI agent look at those emails.

It actually boggles my mind that anyone ever thinks their emails are private. It's not because I accepted the surveillance state. It's because from the moment email was invented it has been described as insecure and and the equivalent of sending a postcard. It's doubly so if you can't trust the recipient not to keep it private.

The moment Kelley showed emails that seemed to have details of generals' travel itineraries, it was going to get investigated. And that's okay with me. There is an electronic trail of who did what in the case, and I expect any improprieties to be punished. They are definitely being revealed.

I don't see this as a warning that our laws are weak and need to be changed. I see this as a warning that more people than I could have imagined are completely clueless about how to use the tech they have their hands on.

Go back to thinking something that someone else owns equates to privacy for you. The conversation ends there. The problem 5 years ago was not the NSA, it was AT&T. People depend all too much on these third party corporations to safe guard their privacy.

KingGorilla wrote:

Go back to thinking something that someone else owns equates to privacy for you. The conversation ends there. The problem 5 years ago was not the NSA, it was AT&T. People depend all too much on these third party corporations to safe guard their privacy.

A couple of years ago, there were some people at work who were very shocked when I told them that "Yes, the government (who is our direct employer) absolutely has the right to look at any email that you send *and* at anything you have on your work computer."

mudbunny wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Go back to thinking something that someone else owns equates to privacy for you. The conversation ends there. The problem 5 years ago was not the NSA, it was AT&T. People depend all too much on these third party corporations to safe guard their privacy.

A couple of years ago, there were some people at work who were very shocked when I told them that "Yes, the government (who is our direct employer) absolutely has the right to look at any email that you send *and* at anything you have on your work computer."

Probably a good idea for people to read and share this. When Will our Email Betray Us? An Email Privacy Primer in Light of the Petraeus Saga.

Not quite as entertaining as a good conspiracy but the truth rarely is:

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/16/15222812-petraeus-takes-the-wind-from-conspiracy-theorists-sails

But Petraeus did not testify, because being fired is just like dying. That's the entire reason Obama dumped him.

Duh!