A senior intelligence official said Saturday that Mr. Clapper had learned of Mr. Petraeus’s situation only when the F.B.I. notified him about 5 p.m. on Tuesday. That night and the next day, the official said, the two men discussed the situation, and Mr. Clapper told Mr. Petraeus “that he thought the right thing to do would be to resign,” the intelligence official said.In his original reporting Ron Kessler claimed to have FBI sources telling him they were mad that the admin was keeping the event under wraps to prevent damage before the election. If that's true then obviously the 5pm thing is spin fantasy designed to get the White House off any hooks about Benghazi.
Because let's face it, if the admin knew about the affair and let it percolate to prevent political damage, then it subsequently came out that the general was busy emailing his mistress while the consulate was going down in flames, that's perhaps something that could have been prevented had earlier action been taken.
At the same time a lack knowledge the Justice Department had discovered salacious details about the DCIA, or that he was simply being investigated at all is impossible to believe. Impossible. Such news would certainly land in Holder's inbox unless Mueller was keeping it quiet, which itself would be hard to believe. Neither outcomes would make the WH look very functional. But, both Mueller and Holder are reportedly heading for the door soon so perhaps it doesn't matter anymore.
Meanwhile the New York Times claims that odd ethicist column featuring the guy with the wife cheating with a 'government executive' involved in an important project with worldwide leadership visibility for the United States was NOT related to Petraeus. Sorry, not buying that yet. First, how many people are in such positions? Second, it seems some of the recent reports are trying to shorten the timelines. We are now told it was only weeks ago when this investigation took place, like hmm, maybe AFTER 9/11? The letter was handled in the column in July 2012. Of course if it wasn't the general, who was it? Sounds just as big.
Well, surely the hearings next week will clear everything up. If they actually occur.
A lot of folks are making an issue of Broadwell's speech at the University of Denver about the CIA having prisoners at the annex, which could have prompted the late attack that killed Doherty and Woods. I think they are conflating stories. We learned early on that people at the annex reportedly captured several jihadists and were holding them at the annex but had to return them to Libyan custody when leaving. What we HAVE NOT been told is that their presence could have triggered the late night counter attack, which suggests Broadwell might have had insider info.
If so, where did she get it? The NY Times claimed Saturday that the affair had ended 'four months ago' according to one of the general's close friends so it sounds implausible that she would still have him as a connection. Then again, she was connected elsewhere so it's probably not much of a smoking gun. She could have also deduced it herself based on some of the reporting of Jennifer Griffen, which she mentioned in the response. So to me this isn't a bombshell.
Matter of fact all of the recent information certainly sets up the "just a coincidence" explanation nicely. The FBI and Justice Dept knew in the 'late summer', which could mean they were told after 9/11 but before 9/23. The affair ended four months ago, so it wasn't going on during 9/11. We don't exactly know when the investigation started but they were still investigating up to the last minute before the election, when someone finally called Clapper and informed him of what the Director and Attorney General almost certainly already knew. There was classified info found on Broadwell's yahoo account, but it wasn't important because there was no criminal case pursued against her, despite that account being part of the Stratfor hack in December 2011.
Summing up, nothing to see here, move along wingnuts.