The Petraeus scandal continues to get stranger. The Wall Street Journal now reports that both Gen. John Allen–the leading candidate to command NATO in Europe–and the FBI agent who took up the initial investigation have been caught sending “inappropriate” emails to Florida socialite Jill Kelley. The FBI began the investigation over the summer after Kelley told them that she received harassing emails, which were eventually linked to Paula Broadwell. This is turning into a soap opera:
KABUL—U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Tuesday asked the Senate to put on hold the confirmation of the top commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. John Allen, as the new NATO supreme allied commander for Europe following the discovery of allegedly inappropriate communications between the general and a Tampa social planner.
The planner, Jill Kelley, is at the center of a scandal involving Gen. Allen’s predecessor as the top coalition commander in Kabul, Gen. David Petraeus, who resigned as CIA director last week after acknowledging an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. …
As part of this inquiry, the FBI also uncovered some 30,000 pages of emails between Ms. Kelley and Gen. Allen, a senior defense official told reporters traveling with Mr. Panetta. The official declined to say whether these allegedly inappropriate emails contained discussions of a sexual nature, or classified information, according to the Associated Press.
According to the Journal, the FBI agent (and whistle blower) reportedly sent Kelley shirtless photos:
The FBI agent who started the case was a friend of Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman who received harassing, anonymous emails that led to the probe, according to officials. Ms. Kelley, a volunteer who organizes social events for military personnel in the Tampa area, complained in May about the emails to a friend who is an FBI agent. That agent referred it to a cyber crimes unit, which opened an investigation.
However, supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation, according to the officials.
One official said the agent in question sent shirtless photos to Ms. Kelley well before the email investigation began, and FBI officials only became aware of them some time later. Eventually, supervisors told the agent he was to have nothing to do with the case, though he never had a formal role in the investigation, the official said.
Both of these stories are odd for different reasons. We don’t know what kind of “inappropriate” emails the married Gen. John Allen was sending to the married Jill Kelley. But assuming they were just of the romantic nature and included no security breaches, why did such an embarrassing revelation go public? It sounds like something that could have just as easily been swept under the rug by the FBI and the Pentagon. Military laws against adultery are rarely enforced, and there’s no indication as of now that adultery technically took place.
As for the second story, the allegations seem to be that the FBI agent sent a shirtless photo to Kelley, a friend of his, well before the investigation began. What is the point of leaking that detail to the media, other than to embarrass him publicly? Remember, this guy was the whistle blower who initially tipped off Eric Cantor about the investigation. Now he’s suddenly under investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility for reasons that are unclear at best? Very disturbing.
The Few, the Proud, the Horny. n nAnd the women who love them. n n. . . and the FBI agents who love the women who love them. n n
This is obviously so much more important than Benghazi, huh?r nYep, nothing like a good diversions, like a sex scandal.r nAnd that FBI agent? framed!!!r nThats our regime in full force!
No, I understand why the FBI is investigating this agent — and they are right to be doing so — it is the basic integrity of the organization that he jeopardized if he did what it appears he did. n nTake, for example, when a police officer (any police officer) is involved in a motor vehicle accident. (Cops are human and they can smash up cars as well as anyone else can.) The protocol almost inevitably is that he is to remain on the scene and render aid, direct traffic and other essential things until enough other officers arrive to do this, but then he is to LEAVE and he is not to investigate his own accident. n nIf there is any controversy as to who caused the accident — essentially whenever the department isn't outright accepting responsibility or when someone is killed — they usually ask a different but similar type of law enforcement agency to conduct the investigation. A small city will ask another city 30 miles away to do it, a county will ask a nonadjacent county, and the state police will either have a distant barracks and/or a specialized unit do it. n nNo one is questioning the integrity of the officer — and notwithstanding the lead-footed tendencies of some of them, he well may not have been at fault. It might have been no one's fault, e.g. he hit a moose and lost control of the vehicle (as will happen when you hit something that weighs half a ton). No one is questioning his fairness or ability to objectively investigate his own accident, or the fairness and ability of his co-workers to do likewise. n nIt is the appearance of impropriety that is trying to be avoided here. n nNow let's say that an officer's wife or daughter is raped. They absolutely are not going to let him investigate that crime. All kinds of reasons for this, including the most practical — what if the perp resists arrest or is legitimately shot & killed by the police (e.g. is shooting at the cops) — no one is ever going to believe the officer's story when it is known that he is arresting his wife's rapist — the perp's family is going to claim that the officer intentionally killed him and everyone is going to believe that, the truth notwithstanding. n nAnd the police absolutely need to have the public believe that they are telling the truth. n nSo they may give the officer some combination of sick bank and paid time off, or put him on a desk job, or have him represent the department at some Homeland Security training or conference in a distant city — they aren't going to let him investigate the rape and they quite likely are going to not want him out in the field as an officer as ones judgment isn't the best when one is emotionally messed up as something like this happening to a loved one tends to make one. n nThe other thing you worry about is a police officer — actually anyone from a FBI agent to Child Abuse Casework — stepping in as an advocate of a friend in a dispute with someone else. I am personally dealing with that sort of thing right now — a neighbor who has a 30-year-old grudge against my late father using political connections to harass me, and I will pursue the options available to citizens should it continue. n nSo, we have a FBI officer who has a personal relationship with a citizen. It doesn't have to be sexual, she could be his children's favorite teacher or whatever. She is the victim of an apparent crime — threatening emails — and we still don't know what the "threatening nature" of them was — a realistic threat to kill, kidnap or such would both be criminal and worthy of an investigation, as would be an extortion attempt. Let's assume they were. n nFBI-guy can legitimately advise her and advocate for her as a citizen, but not in his capacity of an FBI agent. He should want no part of investigating this, and only ask that it be done "by the book" and that no corners be cut on the investigation. And what he absolutely ought not have done is what he appears to have done — go to the local Congressman, wave his badge around, and try to get the Congressman to make an end-run around the FBI's own investigation of this. n nThat's wrong. Arguably, that is a violation of Broadwell's civil rights
Thank you for a thoughtful comment. It makes perfect sense.
Well, I'd like to believe you. This is a well-argued description of how things OUGHT to be. n nBut let's get real. n nWhy is it that city police departments always refer things to Internal Affairs organizations that are congenitally incapable of finding fault with the Police Department? n nSemi-personal example: My wife, before we were married, was pulling out from a four-way-stop in a residential neighborhood in Alexandria, Virginia. A city police car, without the lights flashing or the siren on, flew down the street from her right side. He wasn't responding to a call, he was just in a hurry. Presumably, the station house had reported a new shipment of donuts. n nHe crashed into her car at high speed. Totally destroying her vehicle. He wrote her up for "failing to yield." Had he hit her from the left side, he would have seriously injured, or killed her. (But, hey, donuts were at stake here.) n nMy wife's lawyer was able to demonstrate, at trial, that not only was the police officer not responding to a call, he was travelling at least 20 miles over the speed limit in a 25 MPH zone. n nIf the police officer was found at fault, he would have lost his job. n nSo what happened? n nAnyone? Anyone? n nWhen the police officer walked into the courtroom, he was greeted cheerfully by name by the trial judge. In about 30 minutes the judge was able to determine that my wife was guilty of failing to yield at a 4-way stop. Not only was her car totaled, she was fined for a traffic violation. Insult to injury. n nAs far as I know, that policeman is still endangering the lives of the people of Alexandria. n nWant to believe that police honestly investigate their own failures? It's called the "blue line." It is never crossed. Ask Frank Serpico. n nAs for the FBI, they are congenitally incapable of believing they have made an error. The FBI's culture is too deeply rooted in a belief in their own rectitude. Since they "could not" have made an error, they will never accept or consider any information to the contrary. (Ask Ted Stevens family.) n nThese are deep, institutional problems. I do not attribute widespread inappropriate behavior to the police or FBI, but in a world in which their actions are subject to hair-splitting legalities, it is not surprising that they close ranks and do whatever they must to justify their actions, even when those actions are unjustifiable, since the lawyers will do the same to them. n nIf we are ever to have honest police, we must first have honest laws and honest courts.
One other thing — I don't know if it is part of the law or just FBI policy, but they are supposed to respect the privacy of those accused of crimes and non-relevant portions of communications are supposed to be omitted. I believe that in the case of a real-time wiretap on a phone, once they learn that it is not a relevant conversation, they aren't even supposed to listen to it. n nSo why are we hearing about the two of them having sex under a desk? That is not a crime — unprofessional as h*** for a whole bunch of reasons starting with the fact that government offices are intended to be used for government business, but not a Federal Offense. n nAnd then we have Broadwell's father saying that something really big is being covered up in all of this — and one has to wonder why the FBI isn't doing this "by the book."
I also want to ask this — why are we always holding these women unaccountable? n nBetween no-fault divorce and women's rights and the essential end of any expectation of feminine modesty in either attire or actions — combined with the traditional Victorian-era perspective of only seeing the male as the sexual aggressor and hence the only party responsible for an illicit affair — we have created a cadre of hyper-ambitious (arguably unbalanced) women who are almost prostituting themselves as a means of social and career advancement. n nThese women are destroying the lives, careers and reputations of married men and while I hold both parties responsible — I hold BOTH parties responsible. Remember Jack Welsh of GE who was essentially seduced by the Editor of the Harvard Business Review? At least she was divorced at the time. n nLook at Broadwell — if her husband wanted to divorce her, which would be legitimate should he wish to — he would wind up loosing a good chunk of his assets (and quite likely his children) even though he has done nothing wrong. She has messed up the lives of two different men here — there was a time when she would have been called a "homewrecker" if not worse. n nAnd then look at this other woman in Florida — who is also married. She has an FBI agent sending shirtless pictures of him, and a General sending heaven knows what, and what are we saying about her? n nIf we still had the attitude toward women that much of the rest of the world does — and that we regrettably once did — that they essentially were child-like beings not capable of being responsible for their own lives, then it would be one thing. But we don't believe that — nor do I want to see us believing it — and that means that we need to also hold women accountable for what they do. n nThe other thing, which our concepts of sexual harassment is starting to recognize, is that the woman who is sleeping with the boss (and advances her career that way) diminish the value of the legitimate accomplishments of the women (and men) who aren't, and their careers are set back as she advances in their stead. n nThere are a lot of women — very hard working women — who have advanced on the basis of merit and hard work. The more Broadwells we have getting book deals because they are sleeping with the guy, the more people will presume that these other women also "slept their way to the top" — thus diminishing the legitimacy that they have earned. n nThis is the same issue as academic plagiarism or cheating on a civil service exam — the people who play by the rules are the ones who get hurt — and that is not good social policy….
I repeat my previous comment. Thank you. Mrs. (or Ms.) Broadwell had the same responsibility to her husband as Gen. Petraeus did to his wife. We do not know who initially seduced whom, but it takes two to tango. Gen. Petraeus had more to lose, i.e., not only his marriage, but his job, and Ms. Broadwell knew it, so in some sense she actually has greater culpability for pursuing the affair.
Broadwell also physically went to where Petraeus was — both Afghanistan and Langley. nYes, the latter is just a METRO ride from where she lived, but still she went to where he was. n nThere would have been no affair if she hadn't done that…
heh n nso what, that she went there? n nPatreaus was not her slave-I am sure he knows how to say no n n
nit's always the womans' fault, innit? n nthe poor schmuck just can't control himself or say no n nheh
Its a perfect diversion from Benghazi. An affair, really? Clinton had lots of affairs, and one especially in the Oval Office. It meant nothing. Benghazi is still hanging over their heads, 0bama, Hillary, Panetta, and its going away, although they are trying very hard. I dont care about the affair, I want to know about what happened and why in Benghazi and why they lied about the video.
These woman, learning from Cleopatra, Theodora and Pamela Harriman knew what to do to enter and share the space of power surrounding Patreus and John Allen.__Women like that have always existed, and always will. n nOnly Patreus and Allen were forbidden to engage in adulterous relationships. n n" Adultery in the military is actually prosecuted under Article 134, which is also known as the "General Article." Article 134 simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline. " n nBoth Allen and Patreus should have known better-and it was they who betrayed the laws under which they served. n nUnless these very powerful and capable men were tied up and drugged, they could have said no.
IF women are to be considered the equal to men, then women need to be held equally accountable for their transgressions. To do less is to make women less than equal to men.
Both Patreus and Allen as serving military were forbidden adultery, under military rules, and subject to punishment if found to be fooling around. n nYour comment is non sequitor. n nCleopatra, Theodora and Harriman were arguably better than the men they seduced and used.