Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

FBI

Shirtless Pics in Petraeus Case Cause Trouble for FBI

Agent removed from case after sending photos to Jill Kelley

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t

Jill Kelley / Image: AP

An FBI agent "allegedly [sent] shirtless photos of himself to a woman involved in the case," according to the Wall Street Journal. What's more, the agent is question is the one who lanched the Petraeus inquiry.

So as of now, the Petraeus scandal involves the CIA chief, two attractive married women, a shirtless FBI agent, accusations of a government conspiracy, and (rather anti-climatically) Republican Congressman Eric Cantor.

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Which part of the Petraeus case concerns you most - or is the scandal much ado about nothing?

Comments (view in Forum)

  • blue_yahoo
    !
    What bothers me?.......Well this is just another top official of this administration that doesn't have their shit together. AG Holder doesn't know where the guns are, SS Clinton does know consulates are asking for security, the secret service is more interested in parties and buying hookers, Petraeus can't keep his pants up and the FBI getting into personal emails..........take your pick.
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    1adam2
    !
    this is not a matter, of invasion of privacy. as any one who has ever had, a security clearance knows. you are held to a higher standard, than the normal citizen. and have previously signed waivers, to allow easdropping.

    but any thing sent or recieved on the internet, is considered as public domain. and is no different than, talking in a public place. but extract information, from your computer itself your permission or a court order is needed.

    except for those in security areas, that have already given their permission. can be observed, at any time. but one must keep in mind, that many counter-intelligence agencies, have the ability to invade just about any ones computer connected to the net. so if you don't want people, to know about it. especially! the sleasy kind. don't put it in any computer, with internet connections. your fingers on a keyboard, has the right to remain silent.
  • 1adam2
    !
    @Penn1699 your welcome... but if you are worried, about computer intrusion. there are some very good, encryption programs available that are near impossible to decipher.
  • Lpguy
    !
    Nothing bothers me about this, because i do not even view it as a scandal. I do not care who is having sex with who, nor do i think it has any bearing on how anyone performs there job. Lying about it under the right circumstances will put a negative check mark against you, but Petraeus apologized and resigned as soon as shame came upon him and the office he holds - this actually speaks well of him, he wasn't a weasel about it like Clinton. The media still fervently digging into this is what makes me sick. FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc - they all watch like I'm looking at tabloid covers in the super market checkout line.
  • bsking
    !
    the only thing that bothers me about this story is the fact that the government media is jumping all over it which tells people who are paying attention that they have been ordered to do that by the government in order to keep everyone distracted about something else
  • Lpguy
    !
    @bsking that is an intetesting observation. Maybe they are trying desperatly to discredit Petraeus so they can blame him for an Obama failure to be revealled soon... But most likely the news is hittibg this hard for ratings, people want their reality tv any way they can get it
  • u
    Dojoroda
    !
    The highest intelligence office in the world: it does matter if he has promiscuous sex with sluts on the side, he can be blackmailed.
  • View all 8 replies >
  • u
    ctc
    !
    Biggest concern(so far) is the General.....err....the head of Central Intelligence, communicating covertly with his mistress....err...someone that seems to be releasing state secrets......in a fashion and method that would keep him under the radar of the agency he commands.
    How many of you use personal e-mail accounts to communicate secretly through SAVED e-mails rather than SENT e-mails.....which by the way is a tactic terrorists use.
  • texas_cutie75
    !
    I suppose I am not as email savvy as I thought I was...lol. How does one respond to a saved email vs. a sent email? How does that make it more secure? I know nothing one emails is confidential anymore, so I am curious as to the theory behind that.
  • u
    ctc
    !
    @texas_cutie75 I was a little unclear...let me explain the process.
    Both had the password and access to Petraeus's personal e-mail account. One would log-on and leave an e-mail draft unsent......the other would later log-on read the draft, delete it and then respond with another unsent draft.
  • texas_cutie75
    !
    @ctc Pretty crafty. I still say nothing in emails or the internet is 100% confidential. If you want to keep it a secret, don't use the computer...lol
  • FFX_VA
    !
    Stupid thing to do, pull him off the case like they did, reprimand him, then stick him behind a desk for the rest of his lackluster career.
  • Jean
    !
    General Petraeus should come entirely clean .... all this attention to their private stupidity is just sidetracking what should be examined thoroughly and that is the death of four Americans in Benghazi because a failure by our government not only to acknowledge the truth of what is going on but their failure to protect our people.

    and we gave them four more years to "lead" us?

    God have mercy on us all.

    Pray for General Petraeus that he does the right thing and tells the truth to dismantle this fiasco.
  • ACTSmom
    !
    Why is it the President and VP and other high ranking officials know nothing about any of the potentially threatening/dangerous situations to this administration and our nation? First it was Fast & Furious, then Benghazi, now Petraeus. And that's just in the past few months these have come to light. So if they know nothing, why do we need them? If they're not going to prevent or correct dangerous situations, why do we want them? Who is actually held responsible for our national security? And, yes, the Petraeus affair could very well compromise our national security, depending on how much access he allowed to Broadwell.

    As for his shirtless picture...not something I would care to see.
  • MRMacrum
    !
    What concerns me most? That every day this situation gets crazier and crazier. I think it is important but not because of the hip slapping. Goes to who knew, who told, who didn't tell, who investigated and what was the reason to really dig deeper. Many many unanswered questions.
  • o
    Zoe2012
    !
    Libya, this is just a diversion and liberals not only embrace it, they promote it. This has more attention than the four dead Americans! It is obvious that democrats are hiding information and diverting the attention.
  • u
    ctc
    !
    Which Democrats are you talking about??
    If I had to guess I would bet Petraeus, Broadwell, Kelly, Reichart, and Cantor are all Republicans.
  • o
    Zoe2012
    !
    @ctc Obama and Team, democrats, are utilizing this stupid situation to divert attention away from four dead in Libya. Common sense! Don't play dumb!
  • u
    johnboy299
    !
    If he cheated on his spouse it was wrong, if they were consenting adults with no spouses than what's the problem. His position didn't say he couldn't have a girlfriend. He's not a priest. He's the head of the CIA.
  • u
    RobertJHarsh
    !
    What concerns me is still why the FBI was investigating Petraeus. That is a far bigger issue than Petraeus screwing around. Something fishy is going on and no one is asking what justification the FBI had to investigate him, or what they were investigating that led them to the affair.
  • u
    ctc
    !
    @MRMacrum Probably only four or five degrees of seperation that link everyone on the this planet together via e-mails.....so I guess anybody can become a target by being caught up in someone else's net. It's the new high-tech McCarthyism.
  • MRMacrum
    !
    @ctc - it's funny how folks think an anonymous internet handle somehow saves their privacy. I figure I will save time and effort and just use my name.
  • u
    RobertJHarsh
    !
    @MRMacrum Anonymous don't me a thing on the internet for most people. These people know who we all are and if they don't they can find out real quick.
  • u
    Politico36
    !
    What concerns me is that this is a tactic uses to distract people from the war and focus then on sensationalist garbage. The news should be talking about war policies, results, and impact. In an honest and non propaganda way. Instead the big deal here is a dude that cheated on his wife. And why is the FBI even involved? I smell lies and deception here.
  • LetsAllBeHappy
    !
    I just read the wall street journal that is used as a source for this story-forum, I have not read anything concerning Eric Cantor-http://online.wsj.com/a rticle/SB100014241278873244398 04578115410189757452.html
    I personally think all of this talk is taking away from the Benghazi story. I am more concerned about the death of 4 Americans than a shirless pic-that was sent from an FBI agent that was investigating the "threatening" e-mails sent to the woman.
    Now these stories of affairs-are recieving more coverage than Benghazi, which involved 4 people being killed in a planned attack-the Obama administration knew about it-yet sent Rice out to say it was because of a movie trailor. Now Rice's name has been mentioned as the next secretary of state,and Kerry the next secretary of defense-I could be wrong-so correct me if I am, but did not Kerry also say the killing of 3 navy seals and an ambassador was the result of the movie trailor? But by all means-lets talk about shirtless pics and affairs
  • u
    ctc
    !
    Allegedly, Cantor(the Republican Majority leader in the House) knew about the affair a week before the election and a two weeks before the President found out.
    Something tells me that if Romney wins...everything gets swept under the rug.....gotta believe he knew about it and cut a deal.
    I do half-way agree with some of you that most networks must now count more on the revenue from salacious-ratings-driven coverage now that the bonanza of campaign ad buys have dried up.
  • LetsAllBeHappy
    !
    @ctc I mean no disrespect but I do not understand all you are speaking about-did you mean if Romney won? I must have missed that info about Cantor-so if I am understanding most of what you are saying-is -----somehow the republicans Eric Cantor is going to be blamed for this? now it is being said that alledgedly, Cantor knew of all of this before even the president-therefore Romney must have known about it and cut a deal? so now it is not Bush's fault, it is Romney's and the republicans fault? I am not quiet understanding what you are saying and I do not want to assume something if I am wrong.
  • LetsAllBeHappy
    !
    @ctc I can not find Eric Cantors name in the original news article cited in the Washington post. Will you do me a favor and find it-this is really bugging me-I hate it when I can not find something or I lose something. I have read this article three times and still can not find it-I know you have seen it because of the info you offered.
  • LetsAllBeHappy
    !
    @ctc I have googled him and I have found storys-not evidence though-and this forum story mentioned Eric Cantor and than used the Wall Street Journal story as it's source. It appears that politix picks and chooses its stories. Does a lot of out of context quoting and will combine two stories by using a reputiable news paper and a story that uses an unnamed source with in the Cantor office-politico just reporting what an unnames source told them-which was about Cantor, than used a reputable news paper to quote what truth politix wanted its readers to know. Better watch what I say or else the moderators will remove a lot of my post today saying I am hateful and off topic.
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    @LetsAllBeHappy Your absolutely right, it isn't. While I can't redeem myself, I can explain. I am a man (that should cover most of it), a smarta$$ and I simply couldn't resist. I am also a realist. Though shallow as it may be, the mistress is a fairly remarkable looking lady, your living in Afghanistan, your very powerful, and based only on the pic's I have seen of his wife she has the appearance of a grumpy old church lady. I can assume she has been hurt by this but fact is we only know the media's version. Not that prefer to know anymore than I already do but there is always his side, her side and the truth. From what I understand infidelity always occurs because of a problem, it may not be valid or acceptable to others, known by the other spouse, but there is a reason. I wish I could say I would be nicer, but I am what I am :--)
  • LetsAllBeHappy
    !
    @Buzzfriendly you've redeemed yourself-and perhaps I would be a grumpy looking woman if I were married to someone whom had such little respect for me and our 37 year marriage for a woman-because she was younger and beautiful-heck-he probable had to take that little blue pill. If the general were just an average Joe- do you think a woman who looked like his mistresss would give him a second glance-let alone in her pants. I do not care to know any more either-however as i agree that infidelity always occurs because of a problem-i would say it was the cheater that had the problem. I do not think you would have said that to someone who would share that with his wife-I think you just were being onery. ;>}
  • R Load more comments...