Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Federal charges for Petraeus?

Federal charges for Petraeus?

Did he put America’s security at risk?

FBI and Department of Justice investigators have finally concluded preliminary investigations and recommended that federal charges be brought against former CIA director David Petraeus.

The investigation and charges stem from a 2012 scandal involving Petraeus and his biographer and lover Paula Broadwell. Petraeus was forced to resign from the CIA based on allegations that he had given Broadwell access to his CIA e-mail account, and other classified material.

If it seems like this scandal has been dragging on forever, it’s because it’s been dragging on forever:

The protracted process has also frustrated Mr. Petraeus’s friends and political allies, who say it is unfair to keep the matter hanging over his head. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, wrote to Mr. Holder last month that the investigation had deprived the nation of wisdom from one of its most experienced leaders.

“At this critical moment in our nation’s security,” he wrote, “Congress and the American people cannot afford to have his voice silenced or curtailed by the shadow of a long-running, unresolved investigation marked by leaks from anonymous sources.”

Since his resignation from the C.I.A. on Nov. 10, 2012, Mr. Petraeus has divided his time between teaching, making lucrative speeches and working as a partner in one of the world’s largest private-equity firms, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.

Mr. Holder has said little publicly about the investigation. The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked by reporters in December why it was taking so long, said: “I can’t say. I mean, I guess I could say, but I won’t say.”

Both Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have come out publicly against what they believe has been a mishandled investigation.

Although the investigators have recommended charges, it’s up to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice to decide whether or not formal charges will be filed.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



This is a leak. Is there anything Holder’s DOJ hasn’t mishandled? That is not really a rhetorical question.

I don’t believe it.

Richard Aubrey | January 11, 2015 at 9:40 am

He should get together with Sharyl Atkinsson about external influences on one’s computer records.
These clowns could put pedophilic pron on Franklin Graham’s computer if they felt like it. Which, if things were slow some day or if Graham was annoying them, they probably would.
To have the feds, or any level of law enforcement, claim they found evidence of something nefarious on a computer is meaningless. Especially if the SWAT clowns “seized the computers” of the suspect.
Petraeus might be guilty, but, given who’s charging him, that’s not the way to bet.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | January 11, 2015 at 10:09 am

Compare with the treatment of Sandy Berger.
This stinks of politics.

What a bunch of prudes…prying into the sex lives of consenting adults.

Going after this “leak” is being done because otherwise he would have information that could sink Hillary’s campaign to be the first Shrieking Harpie president of the US. Notice how selective Holder is about going after those who damage the nation: Lerner, not so much.

stella dallas | January 11, 2015 at 2:08 pm

The computer they allegedly found the information on belonged to an Army intelligence officer. I find it hard to believe any of the evidence they claim to have found. They want to make sure Petraeus doesn’t spill any beans about Benghazi, gun running, CIA, etc.

I have every confidence — EVERY confidence, let me tell you — that it is merely coincidence that this story comes just prior to Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi hearings this month.

Coincidence! Nothing more!

he supposedly declined a plea bargain. I suspect he tired of the hush efforts/extortion and wants to fight it out – publicly

Escaped from RI | January 11, 2015 at 5:01 pm

Just because it’s politically motivated doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I graduated from West Point, just like Gen Petraeus and his mistress. I served 25 years. I’ve seen Captains, Majors and Lieutenant Colonels booted from the Army in disgrace or courtmartialed for less than what he’s done. Why should he be different?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Escaped from RI. | January 11, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    Yes, and I have seen, as I am sure you have to Officers and NCO’s who have done considerably worse than the General promoted and/or sent to other postings to protect them.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Escaped from RI. | January 11, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    Also, I would point out that thus far he has not be convicted of a darned thing, so “what he has done” is nothing. Even in the UCMJ you are still innocent until proven guilty. Also, since these recommendations are coming from Holders cronies I immediately question their veracity.

Richard Aubrey | January 11, 2015 at 5:17 pm

I went the OCS route. Less trouble. Ended up 71542.
Your complaint presumes Petraeus actually did this. Point of some other commenters is that he may have not done anything like that.
See the Ted Stevens prosecution. Corrupt as hell. Why believe this is any different?
Thing is, at this point, when the feds say something, they may be telling the truth, but the way to bet is that they’re lying.

I will support charges for the General, right after two things happen.

One we have confirmation that the special forces raids to capture Edward Snowden and Julian Asange were successful and they are either in route to a holding facility or were killed in the raid.

Second, when we have confirmation form a licensed physician that Bradley Manning and Nadal Hassan are deceased after being hung by the neck until dead for treason.

Until then, I see no reason to file charges against the General.

Did he put America’s security at risk?

Did the Obama administration put America’s security at risk by leaking special ops details for his own glory?

Richard Aubrey | January 22, 2015 at 9:01 pm

There’s classified and there’s national security risk. I suspect there are docs still classified about WW I simply because nobody’s bothered to declassify them and, as a matter of law, leaking them is illegal. And, in fact, their contents may be widely known from completely legitimate historical research. Still, better not leak them.
I’ve had silly briefings, and sillier because they were classified. What, we don’t want the enemy to know he’s fighting us? We don’t want the enemy to know we’re fighting him?
And finding them on his computer? See Sharyl Atkisson.
This smells bad. Feel most sorry for Mrs.Petraeus, though. Merely an aid to his career all those years.