What caused the Federal Bureau of Investigation to play the role of voyeur in the affair between David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell? We have been told that FBI agent Fred Humphries—the instigator of the original investigation into “threatening emails” sent by Broadwell to Jill Kelley–was concerned that secret documents might have been passed to or stolen by Broadwell. Yet the FBI made it clear that a breach of national security was NOT at issue in their investigation. “By late October, the FBI had concluded there was no national security breach and was only pursuing a criminal investigation of the harassing emails and whether Petraeus had played any role in them.”
And DID Petraeus play any role in the harassing emails? Well, he certainly didn’t write them, send them, or recommend they be sent. So he clearly played no role. That leads back to the question: Why did the FBI decide to concentrate on David Petraeus and this particular sexual affair, one of who knows how many going on among big-name federal employees?
In the beginning, the Bureau had a tough time deciding whether any laws had even been broken! One source “who worked at the highest levels of national intelligence” told a reporter that “…the emails that Paula Broadwell sent to Tampa Bay socialite Jill Kelley actually weren’t threatening–just catty.” “Kind of cat-fight stuff,” continued the source. They contained language in the manner of: “Who do you think you are? … You parade around the base … You need to take it down a notch.”
So from the start,“…the FBI had a serious debate about whether they should pursue the case at all” and apparently only did so because Jill Kelley was a family friend of Agent Fred Humphries! After all, had Broadwell threatened Kelley with physical harm or death, the emails would have immediately been published in order to legitimize the FBI investigation to the public and further discredit David Petraeus and his mistress. It’s just the way Barack Obama works.
On October 26th a CIA spokesman made the following statement concerning the lack of assistance provided to those killed in Beghazi: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” It was a statement that obviously had to be cleared by Director David Petraeus.
Testifying before Congress in September, the General repeated the Administration’s line about a video being responsible for the uprising that led to the deaths in Benghazi, even though he knew it to be nonsense. But he would NOT assume responsibility for the craven betrayal of those men to the hands of Muslim terrorists.
And not only did Petraeus refuse to take the fall for Obama’s cowardice and treachery in abandoning Chris Stevens and the others; he might well have known that it was indeed Obama who had both doomed these men AND subsequently removed language from original CIA talking points that deemed terrorists, not a video, responsible for their murders.
Clearly, this would cause Obama to view Petraeus as a very real danger, so he instructed the FBI to take him out. David Petraeus wasn’t forced to resign because of some ridiculous affair. Rather, he had become a disloyal threat in the eyes of Barack Hussein Obama. And the incessantly corrupt cannot risk the continued existence of “unreliable” people who know too much about their thuggish and criminal ways. It’s far too dangerous.
The national media wants us to believe that David Petraeus was discredited and forced out of his position over an affair, the sort of moral mischance that would not cost the average Democrat a sleepless night, much less a job. Sorry Barack, but we’re just not buying it.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.