HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Chaffetz on Petraeus: &qu...

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:51 AM

Chaffetz on Petraeus: "It's a crime in the military;" something "grossly wrong"

Source: CNN



Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) responds to the latest developments in David Petraeus' affair and resignation that has widened to include General John Allen.

Rep. Chaffetz says, “You’re not going to notify all the Congress, but you do have a fiduciary responsibility to tell the Chairman and the ranking member of both the House and Senate of the Intelligence Committee. And if they were not informed, and it looks like Dianne Feinstein was not informed, then something is grossly wrong. Those people have to know.”

Read more: http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/13/chaffetz-on-petraeus-its-a-crime-in-the-military-something-grossly-wrong/



The key to this whole thing, and Chaffetz of all people brought it up?:

“You’re not going to notify all the Congress, but you do have a fiduciary responsibility to tell the Chairman and the ranking member of both the House and Senate of the Intelligence Committee. And if they were not informed, and it looks like Dianne Feinstein was not informed, then something is grossly wrong. Those people have to know.”

Who's Who & What's What? Here's A Guide

23 replies, 3337 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chaffetz on Petraeus: "It's a crime in the military;" something "grossly wrong" (Original post)
trailmonkee Nov 2012 OP
doc03 Nov 2012 #1
Monk06 Nov 2012 #21
lapfog_1 Nov 2012 #2
marybourg Nov 2012 #10
JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2012 #3
trumad Nov 2012 #5
JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2012 #6
Sgent Nov 2012 #20
madaboutharry Nov 2012 #4
Sunlei Nov 2012 #7
DollarBillHines Nov 2012 #13
Coyotl Nov 2012 #8
Kingofalldems Nov 2012 #9
Blue Hen Buckeye Nov 2012 #11
joe_sixpack Nov 2012 #12
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #14
amandabeech Nov 2012 #22
notadmblnd Nov 2012 #15
octoberlib Nov 2012 #17
Ash_F Nov 2012 #18
notadmblnd Nov 2012 #19
Ash_F Nov 2012 #16
Justice Nov 2012 #23

Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:58 AM

1. Eric Canter knew and why didn't he say anything? My guess if somehow it would

have involved the president he would be over at Faux running his chops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:55 AM

21. Which is why the whistle blower went to Cantor's house rather than ranking members of the Intel Comm


The Repugs wanted to spring it IF AND ONLY IF they could they could show Obama knew about it.

They will still try to do that but to Cantor's dismay I'm sure, they couldn't do it in time before Nov 6 and leverage the news to turn the election.

On the other hand maybe the RRs thought they had it in the bag and didn't think they had to bring it up. Another explanation is that they had Petraeus in mind for a presidential run, like Mc Arthur and Eisenhower so they didn't want to spoil his chances.

After all it's not like four star generals banging their female staff officers is an unusual thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:04 AM

2. The one thing that all congress people insist on is the prerogatives of Congress - n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapfog_1 (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:00 AM

10. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:07 AM

3. I'd guess the FBI could bury Congress ...

... under a pile of info about pending, in-progress, inconclusive ongoing investigations into all kinds of stuff.

Much of which might end up being nothing at all.

Be careful what you ask for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:09 AM

5. Uhhh...head of the CIA

Kind of important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:16 AM

6. Maybe more of a reason to hold off ...

until you're sure a problem exists. The sort of thing that GHWB would have called "prudent".

Not that any members of congress would leak information about an ongoing investigation for political gain ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:48 PM

20. Informing the appropriate committee (or staff)

of a criminal investigation of any civilian appointee is reasonable.

Its probably also reasonable at some level in the military -- although I don't know enough to know what level that might be (probably between Col. and Lt. Gen)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:08 AM

4. Love the expression on Soledad's face.

The word bubble over her head "Oh, FFS!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:21 AM

7. Cantor expected Romney to win. He risked Americas National security, lost and should resign!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:48 PM

13. Yeah, I wonder why he hasn't made any statements.

They are going to try to put this baby to sleep ASAP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:36 AM

8. Grasping at straws isn't over just because the election is over.

They sooo stretch the facts and speculate to spin this for political gain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:38 AM

9. Keep this kicked for the desperate subject changers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:55 PM

11. Basically, the military attitude on adultery is stupid..

Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Do you get fired from your job for that?. It is none of their business unless they have evidence the person is giving in to blackmail for national secrets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Hen Buckeye (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:03 PM

12. The military doesn't bother much with adultery these days

unless there are other circumstances. I've seen officers who had a whole lot of other issues, so adultery was used to get them out of the service. Most times adultery is right out in the open and other than grist for rumors, doesn't affect one's career. Adultery is an issue however when it comes to top secret security clearances. And since there are probably no secrets the CIA isn't privy to, I can see the cause for concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Hen Buckeye (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:19 PM

14. The *potential* for blackmail is the concern, not its actual presence. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:37 AM

22. It's not just real impropriety, it's the mere appearance of impropriety.

That's the code that judges live by.

It wouldn't be a bad idea if it applied to all people with high security clearances in order to set an example and to inspire confidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:31 PM

15. Just what exactly is a "volunteer military social liaison"?

And why am I getting the feeling that this particular volunteer accepts tips?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:38 PM

17. If that's the case the military must be poor tippers

Twin Florida socialites who are at the centre of the David Petraeus affair gained intimate access to America's military and political elite through their high-rolling lifestyles even as they quietly racked up millions of dollars in debts and credit card bills.
Jill Kelley, whose complaint over threatening emails prompted the FBI inquiry that has ensnared two top generals, is mired in lawsuits from a string of banks totalling $4 million (£2.5 million), court filings obtained by The Daily Telegraph in Florida show.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9676330/David-Petraeus-affair-The-Florida-twins-at-the-centre-of-Americas-miltary-scandal.html


This whole thing is just weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:45 PM

18. How do you even rack up 4 million in debt as an individual?

My bank will cut me off if I am even one day late on a payment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:46 PM

19. it is weird

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:35 PM

16. Petraeus must be pretty upset that his Repub buddies are turning on him...

...just to get at Obama. I guess appointing him as head of the CIA did not appease as well as was expected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:14 AM

23. No urgency on Cantor's part to get to FBI - waited 4 days

Cantor spoke by phone on Oct 27 to rogue FBI employee

This rogue FBI who was supposedly "barred" from investigation knew all the relevant details about the investigation, including that Broadwell and Petraeus were having an affair. The FBI agent worried about classified information being compromised. So the FBI agent knew quite a lot of details about what was going on.

After Cantor talked to him, what did Cantor do? He didn't go over to see Mueller or even call him. No, he asked his chief of staff, Steve Stombres, to call Mueller.

The chief of staff did not speak with Mueller’s chief of staff until Wednesday Oct 31. (Fed government was closed Mon and Tues because of storm).

Not clear what Mueller's chief of staff did beyond receiving information - did he or she tell Stombres the FBI was investigating?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread