Douglass Bartley
11-19-2012, 06:55 PM
A Mackerel Rotting in the Moonlight?
Submitted by Judge Bartley on Tue, 11/20/2012 - 00:36
in
Current Events
http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/
A Mackerel Rotting in the Moonlight?
Does anyone know how to say . . .
“imp__ch”?
The administration’s account of the scope of its knowledge of the Petraeus affair is incredible for it runs run counter to the laws of human nature.
Here’s a part of the timeline published as
“Timeline of Events in Generals Scandal”
ABC OTUS News – Fri, Nov 16, 2012 @ http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-events-generals-scandal-00422...
July 2012 — The affair between Petraeus and Broadwell ends, according to Petraeus’ friend Boylan. Because of the sensitive nature of the investigation involving security issues, FBI officials and Justice Department officials are notified, including FBI director Robert Mueller. Attorney General Eric Holder is notified around this time.
August 2012 — Humphries tells Kelley he’s been removed from the case and complains that the FBI is moving too slowly. Meanwhile, another FBI agent involved in the investigations tells Kelley the FBI has traced the emails to Broadwell, whom Kelley has never met.
Oct. 26 — The FBI conducts its first and only interview of Petraeus. At the interview, Petraeus acknowledges the affair. Petraeus is questioned about the classified documents that are in Broadwell’s possession, and he denies giving her any classified documents.
Friday, Nov. 2 — The FBI conducts what Attorney General Eric Holder later calls “a very critical interview” with Broadwell that convinces the Justice Department it knows enough about the case to inform the White House. In this second interview with Broadwell, the FBI is told how many classified documents she received and that none of them came from Petraeus.
Tuesday, Nov. 6 — As Americans cast their ballots on Election Day, the FBI informs Director of National Intelligence James Clapper of the investigation. Clapper calls Petraeus and urges him to resign.
Wednesday, Nov. 7 — The White House is first notified about the affair involving Petraeus. * * *
Thursday, Nov. 8 — President Barack Obama, having returned from Chicago, is told of the affair. Petraeus meets with Obama at the White House and asks to resign.
_________________________________________________
Apparently the Attorney General, Holder, under whom the FBI serves, knew about the matter months ago. He should be quizzed on exactly when he first knew of it. That he would not tell the president about a scandal involving president’s Director of CIA is a “perfect non-plus and a baffle to all human understanding” (Southey). If Holder or Mueller (FBI) failed to tell the president immediately (and not after the election was secured), they should at least be sent over to an investigation committee.
And if they did tell, well . . . I leave the answer to who can solve fill in the missing letters above. If you can’t solve, call 1-800-VANNA??.
Perhaps the most important question is why did the FBI/Holder refrain from telling the White House until election day, some 11 days after Petraeus admitted the affair? For that matter, why the wait of some four months from July 2012 when Mueller and Holder first knew of the “security issues”?
And there’s also this: Why was Humphries, the FBI’s first investigator, removed from the investigation?
And this: Why was the FBI allowed to rummage through Broadwell’s E-Mails without first securing a warrant? The only “answer” I’ve found is this: “Federal agencies can obtain a substantial amount of information about the online activities of an individual without getting a warrant from a judge. A subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor is usually sufficient to get access to stored emails and login data.” (http://news.yahoo.com/unusual-cia-case-fbi-detoured-usual-path-183024582–politics.html). What’s happened to the 4th Amendment?
If there was a coverup, would it be the equivalent of the Nixon coverup in Watergate? A possibly pertinent obstruction of justice statute reads:
18 U.S.C. §1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
“Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States * * * —
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . . “
Submitted by Judge Bartley on Tue, 11/20/2012 - 00:36
in
Current Events
http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/
A Mackerel Rotting in the Moonlight?
Does anyone know how to say . . .
“imp__ch”?
The administration’s account of the scope of its knowledge of the Petraeus affair is incredible for it runs run counter to the laws of human nature.
Here’s a part of the timeline published as
“Timeline of Events in Generals Scandal”
ABC OTUS News – Fri, Nov 16, 2012 @ http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-events-generals-scandal-00422...
July 2012 — The affair between Petraeus and Broadwell ends, according to Petraeus’ friend Boylan. Because of the sensitive nature of the investigation involving security issues, FBI officials and Justice Department officials are notified, including FBI director Robert Mueller. Attorney General Eric Holder is notified around this time.
August 2012 — Humphries tells Kelley he’s been removed from the case and complains that the FBI is moving too slowly. Meanwhile, another FBI agent involved in the investigations tells Kelley the FBI has traced the emails to Broadwell, whom Kelley has never met.
Oct. 26 — The FBI conducts its first and only interview of Petraeus. At the interview, Petraeus acknowledges the affair. Petraeus is questioned about the classified documents that are in Broadwell’s possession, and he denies giving her any classified documents.
Friday, Nov. 2 — The FBI conducts what Attorney General Eric Holder later calls “a very critical interview” with Broadwell that convinces the Justice Department it knows enough about the case to inform the White House. In this second interview with Broadwell, the FBI is told how many classified documents she received and that none of them came from Petraeus.
Tuesday, Nov. 6 — As Americans cast their ballots on Election Day, the FBI informs Director of National Intelligence James Clapper of the investigation. Clapper calls Petraeus and urges him to resign.
Wednesday, Nov. 7 — The White House is first notified about the affair involving Petraeus. * * *
Thursday, Nov. 8 — President Barack Obama, having returned from Chicago, is told of the affair. Petraeus meets with Obama at the White House and asks to resign.
_________________________________________________
Apparently the Attorney General, Holder, under whom the FBI serves, knew about the matter months ago. He should be quizzed on exactly when he first knew of it. That he would not tell the president about a scandal involving president’s Director of CIA is a “perfect non-plus and a baffle to all human understanding” (Southey). If Holder or Mueller (FBI) failed to tell the president immediately (and not after the election was secured), they should at least be sent over to an investigation committee.
And if they did tell, well . . . I leave the answer to who can solve fill in the missing letters above. If you can’t solve, call 1-800-VANNA??.
Perhaps the most important question is why did the FBI/Holder refrain from telling the White House until election day, some 11 days after Petraeus admitted the affair? For that matter, why the wait of some four months from July 2012 when Mueller and Holder first knew of the “security issues”?
And there’s also this: Why was Humphries, the FBI’s first investigator, removed from the investigation?
And this: Why was the FBI allowed to rummage through Broadwell’s E-Mails without first securing a warrant? The only “answer” I’ve found is this: “Federal agencies can obtain a substantial amount of information about the online activities of an individual without getting a warrant from a judge. A subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor is usually sufficient to get access to stored emails and login data.” (http://news.yahoo.com/unusual-cia-case-fbi-detoured-usual-path-183024582–politics.html). What’s happened to the 4th Amendment?
If there was a coverup, would it be the equivalent of the Nixon coverup in Watergate? A possibly pertinent obstruction of justice statute reads:
18 U.S.C. §1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
“Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States * * * —
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . . “