Video: Ted Cruz smacks down Eric Holder on usage of Drones on American soil

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to filibuster the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director over the latter's unwillingness to unequivocally state that drones would not be used to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder was in front of a Senate panel that included Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz wanted Holder to say it was unconstitutional to kill Americans with drones on American soil if said individuals posed no immediate threat.

Shockingly, Holder equivocates three times before ultimately giving Cruz the answer the Senator from Texas was looking for.

Amazing piece of video.

Via MediaIte:

Eric Holder to Rand Paul: We reserve the right to kill Americans on U.S. Soil

A letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) comes on the same day that the Senate Intelligence Committee approved John Brennan's nomination for CIA Director. Paul has been threatening to delay a full Senate vote until Brennan would unequivocally state that Drones could not be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Brennan hasn't answered Paul's question but Holder has.

Via Washington Examiner:

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Once again, threats by Republican Senators to filibuster nominations appear to be empty because there is no united front when it comes to doing so.

Via the L.A. Times:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants the full Senate to consider the nomination by week’s end.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) vowed to delay the vote until the White House assures him it does not have authority to conduct a targeted killing of an American within the United States. But Paul acknowledged he probably cannot find enough senators to support a filibuster, which requires 41 votes.

It appears that Paul has gotten his answer via Holder but despite it being the wrong one, Brennan just got one step closer to becoming the new CIA Director.

Will Confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director reveal an even weaker Senate?

There is a mainstream line of thought that says John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director will go smoother than that of Chuck Hagel, who was recently confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Hagel was able to clear the necessary hurdles despite an embarrassing performance at his hearing and a string of past statements that indicated an anti-Israel bias at best and and anti-Semitic streak at worst.

However, unlike Brennan, Hagel didn't hold a high-ranking position inside the Obama administration during the Benghazi attacks. As of yet, we still don't have enough answers when it comes to the administration's response and / or Brennan's involvement. Though we do know that Brennan was involved in altering U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points. For some reason, it's being all but dismissed as relevant.

As Foreign Policy points out, one of the reasons a vote on Brennan's confirmation did not take place on the scheduled date of February 28th was because of unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi attacks.

On Sunday, fellow amigos John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to CBS's Face the Nation to renew their months-long quest for more information on the terrorist attack in Benghazi -- and to threaten delays for Brennan's confirmation. One of the key sticking points has been the altered talking points provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before she went on a range of Sunday talk shows to discuss the attacks.

Again, we received confirmation last week that emails provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee showed that Brenann was involved in altering those talking points.

If you are in the camp of those who believe promotions should be given based on good performance and openness relative to questionable performances, then the Senate should exercise its authority in preventing Brennan's confirmation until it gets the answers its entitled to. Unfortunately, such a reality is belied by a Democratically-controlled Senate that doesn't seem interested and a Republican minority that doesn't have enough collective will - as we saw with the nomination of Hagel.

Nonetheless, McCain, Graham, and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued a statement outlining what is known and what is not known about the Benghazi attacks. The statement highlights why there should be far more interest in getting more information about Brennan, relative to those attacks, before moving forward with any confirmation.

Read that statement here.

If the Hagel nomination is any indication, such a statement will not be backed up by a united Republican front that will prevent Brennan's nomination from going through until such questions are answered. It truly will be astounding if the issues raised in the aforementioned statement are not addressed before Brennan is confirmed.

Another point of resistance to Brennan's confirmation comes from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who is virtually apoplectic in response to Brennan's refusal to answer a "yes" or "no" question about whether Drones could or should be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Via FP:

The administration's targeted killing program via drone strikes remains a sticking point for Sen. Rand Paul. The Kentucky lawmaker says a simple "yes" or "no" answer on whether the White House can authorize a drone strike against an American in the United States would satisfy him.

A couple of areas that are being ignored by these Senators are the claims made by former FBI Agent John Guandolo and the authors of a book entitled that singles out Brennan as being the primary player in an operation that served to kick the hornets nest that led to the Benghazi attacks. Guandolo claims to have sources who witnessed Brennan to convert to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.

If authors Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are correct about Brennan's lead command role in a covert operation that involved weapons raids that took place without the knowledge of CIA Director Petraeus or Ambassador Stevens, it is the responsibility of both Republican and Democratic Senators to vet those claims. Ditto for the claims of Guandolo.

Unfortunately, Congress seems to be ceding its power to the Executive Branch on a near daily basis.

Confirmed: John Brennan involved in changing Benghazi talking points

So, after the Senate Intelligence Committee viewed emails, it's now apparent that Obama's nominee for CIA Director - John Brennan - was involved in altering the talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16th. When taken together with the book written by a former Navy SEAL who was best friends with Glen Doherty and a former Green Beret, it would make sense that Brennan wouldn't want the truth to come out... assuming the charges made by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are accurate.

Again, they allege that Brennan was covertly ordering weapons raids in the region and that the 9/11/12 attacks were in retaliation for those raids. If that's true, the administration would indeed have a motive to push the narrative that the attacks were retaliation for a video, not Brennan's operation.

Via The Hill:

“Brennan was involved,” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said after the briefing. “It's pretty obvious what happened.” 

“At the end of the day it should have been pretty easy to determine who made the changes and what changes were made.” 

He described an “extensive, bureaucratic and frankly unnecessary process” that led to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations publicly linking the attack to a peaceful protest gone awry. Republicans have accused the White House of twisting the talking points to avoid harming Obama's national security reputation ahead of the November elections.

Despite this revelation, the media narrative - even in conservative circles - is that the emails don't show an effort to avoid pinning the attacks on terrorists. The apathy and lack of consideration for the work of Webb and Murphy is a bit stunning, really.

From Greta Wire (via Hot Air):

One source familiar with the briefing indicated that they did not believe the emails shed any new light on anything that was not already known and said the messages did not demonstrate an effort by the administration to deliberately downplay the role of “al Qai’da” or “terrorists.”

Emails I obtained in October made it clear that the State Department said very early on that the attacks were driven by an al Qai’da affiliated group.

That last statement from Greta Wire's Chad Pergram is a bit curious, considering that Hillary Clinton herself released a statement as the 9/11/12 attacks were taking place, before Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were murdered, in which she seemed to sow the seeds for the narrative Rice would enunciate five days later on five separate talk shows. Clinton made several subsequent statements between that one and Rice's Sunday show appearances in which she at least implied that same thing. Now we know that Brennan was involved in the process that allowed the furtherance of that narrative.

Video: Authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

Former Green Beret Jack Murphy and Former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb have co-authored a book that makes some explosive charges about Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director, John Brennan. Perhaps the most explosive is that Brennan was ordering weapons raids in Libya after the fall of Gadhafi and that he did so without the knowledge of then CIA Director David Petraeus or Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

According to the Daily Mail, Webb was the best friend of Glen Doherty, one of the two Navy SEALs who was murdered at the CIA Annex on September 11th.

Webb and Murphy appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss their charges and connect some very important dots.

Via Breitbart:



For more analysis of what these charges could mean, go here, here, here, and here.

Did Lindsey Graham accuse Obama of Manslaughter?

It's now a matter of record that Barack Obama made no phone calls during the many hours that transpired during the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks. What's also now a matter of record is the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - whether he realizes it or not - seems to have made the case for Obama's impeachment and removal from office.

Via the Washington Times:

President Obama didn't make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.

The headline of the aforementioned story honed in on the admission by the White House that Obama made no phone calls during the attacks but unless I'm missing something, a U.S. Senator just accused the president of having the blood of two former Navy SEALs on his hands by not doing his job. In layman's parlance, that sounds like manslaughter, which has two legal definitions, both of which could apply to Obama.

Check out what the legal dictionary has to say about that offense:

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious Homicide.

An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.

Try as one might, it's hard to argue - based on the White House admission and Graham's assertion - that Obama didn't have a duty to at least make an attempt to repel the attacks sometime during the seven hour siege involving the consulate and CIA Annex. If Graham is right, Obama failing to execute his duty led to the deaths of Americans. That would be criminally negligent manslaughter.

How about the more egregious form of involuntary manslaughter? As you consider the application of unlawful act manslaughter, consider the claims made in a book by Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy. Among their charges is that the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi were in response to weapons raids ordered by John Brennan directly from Obama's White House. Webb and Murphy also claim that then CIA Director David Petraeus and Ambassador Christopher Stevens were kept in the dark about it.

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an Assault and Battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation—for example, reckless driving—are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act.

If Brennan was secretly ordering raids without the knowledge of the CIA Director and Petraeus should have been aware of those raids, that would constitute an unlawful act. If those unlawful acts were the cause of the attacks on the consulate and annex (CIA), it would seem that Brennan (acting as an arm of Obama) may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

Such things would mean that Brennan's nomination by Obama as CIA Director sets a new high water mark for audacity.

Did John Brennan's actions play a role in Benghazi attacks?

When coupled with the shocking claim by John Guandolo, that Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, converted to Islam while a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's, some of the details released from a new book written by a retired Green Beret and a Navy SEAL may take on added significance. Among other things in the book, Brennan's orders while operating from the White House are identified as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi.

Brennan is Obama's nominee to replace David Petraeus as CIA Director.

But first, take a look at some other relevant information taken from the book, starting with power players at the CIA who wanted Petraeus gone as CIA Director.

Via The Daily Mail:

Media reports indicate that the FBI began investigating Petraeus' affair with Broadwell after Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, a friend of Petraeus and his wife Holly, reported that she had received threatening emails from the mistress warning her to stay away from Petraeus.

The authors say that Kelley's report may have started in the FBI investigation - but CIA officers pressured the Justice Department to keep the inquiry open.

Webb said his sources in the FBI told him federal agents wanted to close down their investigation when they learned that nothing illegal had happened, but they were told to keep digging. The FBI investigators, Webb says, never wanted to out Petraeus' affair.

The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which is headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. Surely, something as big as investigating the CIA Director had to be something Holder was aware of. Based on the fact that the subject of the investigation was someone like Petraeus, Holder almost necessarily had to have approved pushing it forward, but to what end?

Was it - at least in part - to open the door for Brennan to head the CIA? Early indications are that authors Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy don't appear to go that far but they certainly piece together the groundwork for such a scenario.

Again, via the Daily Mail:

Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.

The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had 'kicked a hornet's nest' among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing 'unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,' according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama's pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.

If this is true, it would mean that Obama himself could be directly accountable for the attacks in Benghazi because Brennan was ordering these raids from the White House. As such, he was a direct arm of the Obama administration. These raids weren't just carried out on orders of the administration. They apparently weren't made known to the people who would ultimately face what could be identified as their consequences.

Petraeus was furious, they say, because he was kept in the dark about the raids being conducted without his knowledge by the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) across Libya and North Africa.

Webb and Murphy claim that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost in Benghazi proved to Petraeus that he was an outsider in the Obama administration and that he would remain marginalized as long as he was at the CIA.

The central premise of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' is that the attacks were precipitated by secret raids JSOC had performed in Libya. An attack on the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia days before September 11 may have been the final straw.

According to what Webb and Murphy are saying here, Petraeus was forced out and Brennan's orders to raid Islamist strongholds led to the Benghazi attacks on an unsuspecting consulate and CIA Annex. At least calling that last part into partial question is the fact that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith both seemed more than just a little concerned about coming under attack. Stevens sent cables to the State Department requesting more security and Smith made reference to losing his life while gaming from the consulate / Special Missions Compound (SMC) on the day of the attacks. That said, it's still possible that a growing threat was felt but not fully understood.

Check out this particularly explosive excerpt from the book. It seems to add credence to the concerns of Senator Rand Paul, raised during his questioning of Hillary Clinton last month:

John Brennan also ran a highly compartmentalized program out of the White House in regard to weapons transfers, and Stevens would not have been trusted with that type of information. Stevens likely helped consolidate as many weapons as possible after the war to safeguard them, at which point Brennan exported them overseas to start another conflict.

Ostensibly, that "exported them overseas" part is a reference to weapons sent from Libya (the annex?) to the Syrian rebels (via Turkey?).

If Petraeus and Stevens were kept in the dark relative to Brennan's raids and those raids served as the motivation for the attacks on the consulate and annex, that places blood directly on the hands of those behind Brennan's orders and secretiveness with respect to them. Under such a scenario, it would appear that Brennan is less qualified to be CIA Director than Petraeus was after the affair became public.

Also, if the claims of Webb and Murphy are true, Obama must certainly know that truth. If so, why would he be nominating Brennan to replace Petraeus unless he was fully behind what Brennan was allegedly doing?

That leads us directly to a covert, pro-Muslim Brotherhood strategy coming directly from the Obama White House, which brings us back to the claim made by Guandolo, that Brennan secretly converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia and that he was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically.

People might point to Brennan's orders to raid Islamist locations in Libya as evidence that he did NOT convert to Islam because his new religion would forbid him from attacking his own. In reality, the concept of Muruna, espoused by none other than the Brotherhood's most senior spiritual adviser - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - sanctions the killing of Muslims if doing so furthers the cause of Islam.

Again, just operating under the premise that Guandolo has already put forth...

If Brennan's objective was to raid Islamist strongholds for the purpose of confiscating weapons that could then be sent to the Syrian rebels in the latter's fight to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, such a thing would be perceived by the Brotherhood as a greater good.

The bottom line, however, is this: If Brennan was the guy behind operations that both left the consulate and the Annex unprepared to defend against attacks caused by White House policy AND if Brennan was the guy behind secretly ordering weapons be sent to Syrian rebels, all of that is made much worse by Obama's decision to nominate him for CIA Director in the first place.

That would tie Obama directly to gun-running from Libya to Syria and THAT would make Fast and Furious look like child's play by comparison.

The cherry on top would be this administration's attempt at gun control in the U.S. while arming al-Qaeda.

Report: Obama's Nominee for CIA Director converted to Islam

During a radio interview with Tom Trento of the United West, former FBI Agent John Guandolo made the claim that he knows people who were present when Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director - John Brennan - converted to Islam when Brennan was a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's. If true, it might help to explain Brennan's response to a question at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) last year.

Last summer, letters signed by five congressmen, to include Michele Bachmann, were sent to five various Inspectors General. The intent of the letters was to raise concerns about the infiltration of the U.S. Government by the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who objected the most to the letters are the ones who avoided the facts altogether.

That leads to the appearance of Brennan at CFR last August, when the controversy surrounding the contents of Bachmann's letters was at its peak. If Guandolo is right, that Brennan was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood, it would mean that Obama's counterterrorism adviser is one of the people Bachmann, et. al. was unknowingly concerned about. On that note, pay attention to Brennan's reaction to a question about the concerns of those congressmen.

If Guandolo is right, Brennan's reaction is exactly the type of reaction one would expect. He mocked the congressmen and suggested the question be asked of them, not him. What is truly amazing is that Brennan actually speaks Arabic and displayed no concern whatsoever about infiltration.

Via Huffington Post:

Did Hillary Commit Perjury... Twice in the same day?

In two otherwise pathetic performances by Republican congressmen - save for a few exceptions - who laid down like subjects in front of Queen Hillary, there were two exchanges - one during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and the other during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing - where the Secretary of State may have committed perjury.

First up, perhaps the best performance from any of the members of either committee. Rand Paul (R-KY) didn't just tell Clinton she should have been fired, and would have been had Paul been president during the Benghazi attacks. He also asked her a question she denied knowing the answer to. Her claim of ignorance strains credulity.

Moreover, when someone says she doesn't know something when she does, it's still a lie.

This entire exchange is worth watching, to include Hillary's body language when Paul says he would have fired her, but pay attention beginning at the 2:17 mark. Here is the portion of that excerpt transcribed:

Paul: …Is the United States involved with an procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Clinton: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I would like to know is, the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying, selling weapons, and are these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?

Clinton: Well Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available…

Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Clinton: I do not know. I have no information on that.

Did you catch her ultimate response? Her answer to the 'yes' or 'no' question about whether the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for weapons trafficking was, 'I don't know'. The Accountability Review Board (ARB) that Clinton herself commissioned to investigate the failures of Benghazi found the State Department most responsible, right?

Shouldn't the question about whether the Annex was being used to traffic weapons have been answered by the ARB? Wasn't it the group's job to investigate the attacks? Wouldn't it only demonstrate further incompetence for the ARB not to make that determination, one way or the other?

That aside, is the American public supposed to believe that more than four months after the attacks, Clinton had no interest in ascertaining the answer to such a question, despite news reports that made the claim? At no point, did she or one of her subordinates seek to find out if there was any validity to those reports? If she did not seek out that information, why didn't she do so?

Another possibility is that Clinton knows full well, the answer to the question. If the answer was 'no', what harm would there be in her answering it that way? If the answer was 'yes' and she knew that, one can conclude that the reason to portray ignorance would be to cover up wrongdoing. Otherwise, why commit perjury?

There is something else to take note of here and it's a common reaction by people who are confronted with uncomfortable truths. An attempt is made to diminish the credibility of the messenger. Hillary's initial reaction to Paul's question is to repeat the word 'Turkey' as if it was a question completely out of left field and foreign to her. By appearing surprised, Paul can be painted as a lone voice with an obscure theory.

Nonetheless, her ultimate answer means we are to believe that she has no idea whether the CIA Annex was involved in weapons trafficking.

If she does know, she committed perjury by saying she didn't.



Later in the day, Clinton appeared in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify on the same subject - the Benghazi attacks. Take note beginning at the 5:10 mark. Here is the relevant portion of her response to a series of questions from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL):

Clinton: With respect to the video, I did not say that it was about the video for Libya. It certainly was for many of the other places where we were watching these disturbances.

Check out the statement about the Benghazi attacks - from Hillary herself - on 9/11 (h/t Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News). It said, in part:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any international effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Here is a screenshot of the statement (note it says 'Statement on the Attack in Benghazi' at the top):

Have a look at the exchange with Kinzinger. Again, pay attention beginning at the 5:10 mark:

Conflicting CBS Reports on when Susan Rice received talking points

Perhaps it's time for CBS to reconcile some inconsistencies in its reporting about when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice received her talking points on the Benghazi attack. Given that Rice's appearances on five talk shows on 9/16 have become a focal point, it might be more than just a little warranted here.

First, let's go back to a November 15th CBS report. In particular, take note of the very first paragraph, which says:

CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

 Here is the screenshot:

Now, how about the most recent CBS report, published on November 20th? It claims that Rice received her talking points on September 14th:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

This may seem like a matter of splitting hairs but given the sensitive nature of the timeline between 9/11 and 9/16, it's a bit relevant to find out exactly when Ms. Rice received those talking points, is it not? After all, two significant things happened on September 14th. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney pointed to the now infamous anti-Muhammad video in the daily press briefing that kicked off before Noon and Hillary Clinton was at Andrews Air Force Base as the four murdered Americans arrived. While there, Hillary talked about the video being responsible.

We now know that was demonstrably false and that Hillary gave that false information at quite an unseemly time and place. According to Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL and CIA who was among the four who were murdered, Clinton told him that the filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.

So, CBS, when exactly did Susan Rice receive her talking points?

Date and time please.

James Clapper in 2011: Muslim Brotherhood 'secular'; James Clapper in 2012: al-Qaeda not responsible for Benghazi

As the matter of who changed Susan Rice's talking points continues to be a bone of contention for those demanding the truth about what happened in Benghazi, the White House has apparently decided to throw Republicans a bone fragment. The person they're now saying is responsible for taking out any reference to al-Qaeda in Rice's talking points is Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, while also saying that it wasn't him specifically.

Uh, yeah, I know.

As for the reason why references to al-Qaeda were removed...

Via CBS:

...an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

Does this not beg a very simple question? If references to al-Qaeda were too "tenuous" and the source did not have enough credibility to warrant running with that assessment, what genius was trusted when the narrative came out that the anti-Muhammad video was responsible? It would appear then that the source that wasn't trusted but should have been, now has more credibility and that the source that was trusted and shouldn't have been is... who?

Back to the CBS report:

"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

Since the truth is so evasive because those responsible for releasing it don't seem interested in doing so, let's go with the aforementioned narrative. The extramarital affair of former CIA Director David Petraeus notwithstanding, the CIA appears to be the only entity that assessed the attack correctly by pointing to al-Qaeda. Yet, the head of the CIA is the only guy who lost his job?! This would seem to point to the possibility of the administration holding the affair over Petraeus' head until after the election.

There are some interesting questions raised in the next two paragraphs from the CBS report:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Brennan says her source wouldn't confirm who in the agency suggested the final edits which were signed off on by all intelligence agencies.

First, as I mentioned in an update to this post, in a previous CBS report, dated November 15th, it was claimed that Susan Rice received her talking points on September 15th but as you can see above, the most recent CBS report says she received them on September 14th.

Second, note the last sentence in the excerpt above about "all intelligence agencies" ultimately signing off on the final edits. That would include Petraeus, right? Now, what sort of thing might motivate him to "sign off" on the talking points that excluded al-Qaeda?

Administration knowledge of an extramarital affair perhaps?

As for Clapper, he has a history of denial when it comes to identifying America's enemies. When one couples his involvement in the extraction of the words "al-Qaeda" from Rice's talking points with his claim in 2011 that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular", we have a bit of a trend with this guy.

Trumping accountability for Lying - the Race and Gender cards

An unbelievably ridiculous narrative is being pushed that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is being targeted by old white guys because she is black and female. Forget the fact that she gave the American people false information five times on September 16th. That's not relevant. The Morning Joe panel is the latest place where you can find this egregious argument.

Via NewsBusters:



At the November 14th press conference, Barack Obama reacted strongly to a question about Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain going after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her demonstrably false talking points on five September 16th talk shows. In response, Barack Obama urged the Senators to go after him instead of Rice while saying she had nothing to do with Benghazi (the logical follow-up question to that wasn't asked) and that the White House sent her onto those talk shows.



Frankly, McCain and Graham should take Obama up on this offer for a few reasons. First, according to CBS, these CIA talking points were altered prior not just to Susan Rice uttering them on September 16th but before Jay Carney seemed to make the same case on September 14th, that the Benghazi attack was a result of the anti-Muhammad video. Second, as the official mouthpiece for Obama, going after Carney would equate to doing exactly what Obama suggested those two old, white, male Senators should do - go after Obama. Third, by going after Carney instead of Rice, Graham and McCain cannot be accused of attacking him over his race or his sex; he's as white and male as they are.

Then again, perhaps Rice was traipsed out to all of those shows for a moment such as this - the race and  gender cards. Her making demonstrably false statements is irrelevant, apparently.

Forget Susan Rice; who gave Jay Carney his September 14th Talking Points?

As a direct result of the November 16th testimony given to House and Senate Intelligence committees by former CIA Director David Petraeus, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has come under the public spotlight. Everyone wants to know who altered her talking points prior to her five Sunday show appearances on September 16th, five days after the attack in Benghazi. According to Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Petraeus told the committee that the original CIA talking points made specific reference to al-Qaeda involvement. Rice's talking points did not.

CBS News reported that the talking points prepared for Rice were issued on September 15th. Petraeus briefed both Senate and  House Intelligence committees on September 13th and 14th respectively. After his November 16th testimony, King told reporters that Petraeus insisted that he always knew that it was a terrorist attack that involved al-Qaeda elements. The congressman said the recollections of both himself and Petraeus about the September 14th testimony were different. King remembered Petraeus saying the attack arose from a "spontaneous reaction" to the anti-Muhammad video. Petraeus' recollection was that he knew it was a terror attack.

Again, here is what King said after Petraeus testified on November 16th. Take note of what King says about the CIA talking points going through a "long process" that involved State and DOJ:



For the sake of argument, let's assume that Petraeus' recollection was correct and that on September 14th, he testified that there was al-Qaeda involvement in the attack and that it wasn't caused by a video. We're to believe then, that he delivered CIA talking points.  If Petraeus delivered the unchanged CIA talking points on September 14th, that "long process" likely would have begun sometime thereafter, taking approximately 24 hours to be given to Susan Rice.

Hang on a second.

At precisely 11:42am on September 14th, the daily White House press briefing began. During that briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney - not just the voice of the administration but of the President himself - said this:



Here is the corresponding portion of the transcript via RCP:

JAKE TAPPER: Wouldn't it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But, Jake, let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

TAPPER: At Benghazi?

CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary, that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

Again, if Petraeus was truthful with the committee on November 16th, that the CIA knew almost immediately that the attack was not "spontaneous" or in response to a video and that he relayed that information to the Senate Intelligence committee on September 13th and to the House Intelligence committee on September 14th, then Jay Carney lied. This is significant because Carney gets approved talking points from the President. Again, Rice is the voice of the administration while Carney is the voice of the President specifically.

Now, back to King's assertion that the CIA talking points went through a "long process, involving many agencies". Taking Petraeus at his word on November 16th, that he issued CIA talking points to congressional committees on September 13th and 14th, how did they go through such a lengthy process quickly enough for Carney to enunciate the new talking points before lunch on the 14th?

So, Rice was given her altered talking points on September 15th but the voice of the president had them by the morning of September 14th.

The question that needs to be asked is not who altered Susan Rice's talking points but who altered Jay Carney's talking points one day earlier?

This smacks of racism and sexism by the way. The black, female, U.N. Ambassador is being hung out to dry by the administration while the white, male, press secretary is getting a pass.

What say you Marcia Fudge and Gwen Moore?

**UPDATE** CBS News is now reporting that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reviewed the talking points before they were given to Rice and the House intelligence committee:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Uh, are my eyes deceiving me or did the date that Rice received the talking points change? Does this mean Clapper reviewed the talking points on the 14th or that they were given to Rice on the 14th? CBS no less, reported on November 15th that Rice received the talking points on September 15th:

CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier.

So which is it? Was Susan Rice given the talking points on September 14th or on September 15th?

Incidentally, James Clapper is the guy who told Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular". This is relevant because that lie speaks to his credibility:

Rock Me, I'm Petraeus and the introduction of Bubba the Love Sponge into Benghazi-gate

Just when you thought the Benghazi-gate scandal couldn't get any more bizarre, a Tampa Bay shock jock named Bubba the Love Sponge makes an appearance. I'm not sure what's more surprising, that or the fact that CIA Director David Petraeus and General John Allen viewed him as enough of a threat to warrant reaching out to State Department socialite Jill Kelley to reach Tampa's mayor in order to prevent the Love Sponge from following through on a pledge to "deep fat fry" a Qur'an.

Via Tampa Bay Times:

Does Bubba the Love Sponge Clem have anything to say about the fact that Tampa's mayor called him a "complete moron" in an email to Tampa socialite Jill Kelley?

Does he ever.

"For Bob Buckhorn to call me a moron? I mean, are you kidding me? Let's talk about moron status," the shock jock told the Tampa Bay Times.

So why did Tampa's mayor call the Love Sponge a moron?

Kelley emailed Buckhorn earlier this year, saying then-CIA director David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen were emailing her about a plan Clem had to "deep fat fry" a copy of the Koran. She said Allen was worried that the radio stunt could put troops in harm's way and was going to call her from Afghanistan to discuss a next step.

In an email response to Kelley, Buckhorn wrote, "This Bubba the Love Sponge is a complete moron."

Clem said the people who got him to stop the Koran burning were his lawyer and the heads of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and the Tampa Police Department. But he said Kelley "probably did get intel to have me stop it, and that's the problem itself."

A Bubba's Army truck circled the Bayshore Boulevard block of the Kelley home for about a half-hour Friday, pumping a parody to the tune of Falco's Rock Me Amadeus about Petraeus.

Ladies and gentlemen, Bubba the Love Sponge is now officially part of Benghazi-gate but the much larger issue is that four star Generals like Petraeus and Allen are more concerned with what a small town Gainesville pastor and a Tampa Bay radio personality do with Qur'ans than what radicals who follow the Qur'an plan to do to us.

Before checking out the video, have a look at the Love Sponge van as it circled Jill Kelley's home while blaring the Rock Me Amadeus parody:

(Love Sponge van circles Kelley residence)

(Bubba the Love Sponge)

Petraeus: Administration's knowledge of affair did not influence my testimony

The headlines that seem to be dominating the news relative to the closed-door testimony of former CIA Director David Petraeus in front of House and Senate Intelligence Committees was that someone changed the CIA's talking points before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice recited them on five Sunday talk shows on September 16th. Petraeus reportedly told the committees that he knew the attack was coordinated and not the result of a spontaneous reaction to a video.

That is indeed significant but there is another aspect of Petraeus' testimony that warrants further investigation. When House Intelligence committee member, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was asked if the extramarital affair Petraeus engaged in with biographer Paula Broadwell in any way influenced the former CIA Director's testimony on September 14th, King volunteered that Petraeus said that it did not.

Hopefully, the next question that was asked was:

Did you know at the time of your September 14th testimony that the administration knew about your extramarital affair?

If that question was asked, what was the answer?

Via MRC (at the 1:15 mark):



Lt. Col. Ralph Peters indicated on November 9th that he thought the administration likely held the affair over Petraeus' head, as did Charles Krauthammer on November 13th. If such a thing were true, it would constitute blackmail and be a much more serious infraction by the White House than altering the CIA talking points from September 14th by taking out any reference to al-Qaeda and putting in that line about the attack being caused by the anti-Muhammad video.

While it is a bit of a bombshell for Petraeus to admit that he knew the 9/11/12 attack was terrorism and not related to a video, he almost had to concede that ground based on what had come out so far. Not doing so would have opened up an entirely new can of worms.

Also take note of what King said in the above video when Petraeus allegedly insisted that he knew it was terrorism all along. King made reference to the fact that Petraeus clearly left a different impression during his September 14th testimony. Here is the opening of an ABC news report at the time:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”

“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

This is important because it looks like Petraeus wants to say he didn't say what he said. King made reference to that but doesn't underscore it enough. On September 14th, Petraeus seemed to allege that the attack began as a spontaneous reaction which drew in al-Qaeda elements. On November 16th, he seemed to say the attack was coordinated and planned in advance by al-Qaeda elements.

Let's go back to that October 26th speech by Paula Broadwell, Petraeus' mistress. In it, she said two things of import relative to the discrepancies between how Petraeus testified on September 14th and November 16th. First, at the 1:30 mark, Broadwell asserts that Petraeus knew what was going on within twenty-four hours of the attack in Benghazi and then says everyone thought that all of the protests were the result of the video.



So which is it? Did Petraeus know within 24 hours of the attack that it was an act of terrorism that had nothing to do with the video or did he think it was the result of the video? Inconsistencies between what he said on September 14th and November 16th absolutely exist. That is what makes this an issue of Petraeus' credibility.

That is why questions about the possibility that Petraeus' September 14th testimony being unduly influenced by an administration that knew of his extramarital affair should continue to be asked.

That would mean blackmail, which would be an impeachable offense. This debate about whether the talking points were changed, though important, pales by comparison.

Tyrone Woods and David Petraeus: A tale of two future legacies

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has volunteered to testify to House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed session on Friday, November 16th. The families of four dead Americans still have not been told the full truth about what happened in Benghazi. Now, the scandal-rocked Petraeus, who has had his legacy forever tarnished by an extra-marital affair, has an opportunity to reclaim much of his honor at great personal risk or place it in a circular basin and pull down on the lever.

When it comes to former Navy SEAL, Tyrone Woods, there are two aspects to his super-heroic story. One is that he gave his life to save fellow Americans. The other is that he allegedly disobeyed an immoral order to do it. If the latter is indeed true, it is the least that Petraeus could do to tell that truth to Congress, regardless of who gave it.

Fox News reported that Woods was ordered to "stand down" at least twice before he decided to put his career and his life in danger; he lost both. In that same report by Jennifer Griffin, the CIA chain of command was identified as having denied Woods the military back-up he requested:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

That "CIA chain of command" is something that then CIA Director David Petraeus was ultimately responsible for but on the exact same day that Griffin's report was published, ABC's Jake Tapper tweeted an excerpt from a CIA statement:

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

So, Petraeus essentially put himself on record as saying his agency did not tell Woods to stand down. If that's true, it meant that either someone else did or no one else did. If Woods was told to stand down and that truth is not told, it will be a slap in the face to his honor because it will have meant that he put so much on the line to do what was right, and future generations will never know it.

If the CIA statement is correct, the spotlight logically shifts to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who basically accused anyone who questioned his judgment as being engaged in Monday morning Quarterbacking.

Via CBS DC:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

Aside from the fact that Tyrone Woods didn't know what was going on either, except that Americans were in harm's way and needed help. He risked and lost his life doing just that, despite not having all the facts about what was happening. Applying Panetta's standard, the Defense Secretary wasn't even willing to risk his own reputation to protect American lives. That quote from Panetta also comes across as a tacit admission that Woods would not have received back-up if he asked for it, which lends credence to the claims that he disobeyed orders to stand down.

Petraeus can clear that all up if he chooses honor over self-preservation. We all know what Woods chose when faced with the same decision.

In a November 2nd UPI report, the CIA was the entity identified as being responsible for the Benghazi Consulate:

The CIA was the real commanding agency at the attacked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, not the State Department, senior U.S. intelligence officials said.

In addition, two of the four men who died in the Sept. 11 attack -- former Navy SEAL commandos Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- were actually CIA contractors killed defending the mission, not State Department contract security officers, as originally publicly identified, the officials told several news organizations on condition of anonymity.

Of course, this doesn't square with the multiple requests for additional security made to the State Department by Consulate personnel. In an October 31st report from Fox's Catherine Herridge, she revealed that an August 16th cable was sent from Ambassador Christopher Stevens directly to the office of Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, for additional security. That request was very detailed and very specific.

Via Fox News:

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

A little later in the report...

Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.

The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.

Of course, this example is one of many that the Consulate reached out to the State Department - not the CIA - on issues of increased security. In testimony before the House Oversight Committee, State Department officials admitted both to being aware of additional requests for security as well as to watching the attack on the Consulate as it happened, in real time. Yet, the UPI report seems to attempt to absolve the State Department of culpability.

That poses a small problem. Hillary Clinton personally accepted responsibility for the security of her State Department officials, which necessarily includes Stevens.

There are at least four people who know far, far more than what we're being told. They include Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and David Petraeus.

Again, the former CIA Director can clear that all up if he chooses honor over self-preservation. We all know what Woods chose when faced with the same decision.

True leadership means putting your men above yourself. As CIA Director, one of Petraeus' subordinates was Tyrone Woods, who is a national hero the likes of which we rarely see. If Petraeus is capable of putting his men above himself, he will tell the truth on November 16th, no matter what it is.

If he does not, he will only further tarnish his own legacy in the name of self-preservation while doing a gross disservice to a true American hero.

Was David Petraeus Blackmailed by the White House?

The definition of "blackmail" is as follows:

any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.

If then CIA Director David Petraeus was instructed to give false testimony to Congress in the days after the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack in exchange for his extramarital affair to remain under wraps, that would be a form of blackmail. The payment would be his compliance / false testimony. We now know that Petraeus did in fact give false testimony on 9/13/12.

Via ABC News:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

The question then becomes: Did Petraeus knowingly give false testimony?

According to the October 26th speech by his alleged mistress, Paula Broadwell, Petraeus knew what was happening "within 24 hours" of the attack. If that can be confirmed, then we can rightfully conclude that Petraeus DID knowingly give false testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

This leads to a very simple question: Why did he do it?

With hindsight, a few important things have come to light:

1. The Obama administration wanted to push a narrative that said the attack in Benghazi was caused by a reaction to the anti-Muhammad video, as evidenced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's five appearances on five different Sunday shows in which she parroted that narrative.
2. Attorney General Eric Holder likely knew of the Petraeus affair prior to the 9/11/12 attack.
3. The FBI knew of the affair as far back as last spring.

The amazing thing here is that because these officials had this information and didn't act on it, Petraeus was indeed susceptible to blackmail, not by external forces but by internal ones - the Obama administration itself.

Here is Charles Krauthammer speaking to this very thing on November 13th:

Or how about Lt. Col. Ralph Peters from November 9th:



As has been made clear since news broke of an extramarital affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell, the reason it is significant is because it exposed him to blackmail. Since his resignation, we have been told by pundits and reporters that while the Petraeus affair was unfortunate, it ultimately posed no threat to national security.

Via CNN:

Retired Gen. James "Spider" Marks, for whom Broadwell once worked and who knows Petraeus, said he doubts security protocols were breached despite what seems an unlikely indiscretion on the part of Petraeus.

"There's almost zero percent chance that national security was compromised or at risk," he said Monday.

Via the Youngstown Vindicator:

...the affair between former general and ex-CIA director David Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, may not have any greater national security implications than the celebrated affair of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor during the filming of “Cleopatra.”

Matthew Miller at the POLITICO, which is essentially a White House ventriloquist dummy, insists that the FBI followed the rulebook in its handling of the matter:

In this case, it appears the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation handled the matter entirely in keeping with those rules and precedents. And, importantly, they passed the most crucial test faced whenever the department investigates a senior member of the existing administration: They conducted the entire investigation without playing favorites and without a hint of political interference.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Miller is right and that the handling of the Petraeus matter by DOJ and FBI was flawless. He doesn't account for one very disturbing possibility.

Blackmail by the White House.

h/t WZ

The Entire Paula Broadwell speech is back up

Some time after posting this yesterday, the full forty-one minute video of a speech given by CIA Director David Petraeus' mistress - Paula Broadwell - was pulled down from YouTube. It has since been uploaded again and can be seen below. The excerpt getting the most attention begins at the 35:50 mark and involves Broadwell telling a University of Denver Symposium audience that the CIA Annex in Benghazi was actually being used to house prisoners.

If true, especially since the CIA is denying that claim, it would almost necessarily mean that she divulged classified information back on October 26th, when this speech was given. That begs another question:

Why was the entire speech taken down and the relevant excerpt all over the internet? Is there more that she divulged that hasn't been identified yet?

Still, one thing that remains very curious is that if the FBI interviewed Broadwell on the week of October 21st, why would she have such loose lips so soon thereafter, at a public symposium?

h/t KleinOnline:

About that Paula Broadwell Video...

We're now learning that the FBI had stumbled on to the affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell several months ago when the female recipient of an allegedly threatening email from Broadwell went to the authorities. It's being reported, however, that investigators didn't talk to Petraeus until recently.

Via Washington Post:

The investigators first interviewed Petraeus about two weeks ago, the officials said. They reviewed the evidence with him but did not suggest that he should resign or that he would be charged with a crime, according to the officials.

One of the officials said Justice Department officials were unclear on what steps to take after they concluded that there would be no charges against the CIA director or Broadwell and that there had been no breach of national security.

“What was our responsibility?” said one of the officials. “We were in an area where we’d never been before.”

The notification finally came Tuesday evening, while polls were still open across the country in an election that would return President Obama to office for four more years.

According to the Daily Telegraph, investigators first interviewed Broadwell on October 21st about what they had found. Yet, five days later, on October 26th, while speaking at a University of Denver Symposium, Broadwell seemed to openly divulge something that, if true, would have been a bombshell. Investigators reportedly first spoke with Petraeus just two days later, on October 28th. Fast forward to the 35:50 mark, at which point Broadwell says:

“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”

Neil Munroe at the Daily Caller is reporting that the CIA is adamant that Broadwell's aforementioned claim is false and that the Libyan annex held no prisoners:

The Central Intelligence Agency denied charges Sunday that its annex in Benghazi, Libya secretly held a few jihadi prisoners until it was destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack. Paula Broadwell, the girlfriend then-CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus, made that claim during an Oct. 26 speech in Denver, Colo.

Munroe also cites a Daily Beast find, which very well could be the best explanation for where Broadwell got her information - a Fox News report from Jennifer Griffin, which was actually dated October 26th; Broadwell even referred to a news report from Griffin in this speech. Here is the excerpt in question, from Griffin's report:

According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Of course, making it even more unlikely that Broadwell was revealing sensitive or classified information is the fact that the FBI had interviewed her only five days prior to this speech about both her emails to Kelley as well as the nature of her relationship with Petraeus.

That her words may be getting increased scrutiny is likely an unintended consequence of scandal. It also could cause more media interest in Benghazi-gate.

**UPDATE** The above video has since been removed but below is a shorter excerpt from the speech that consists of the controversial few minutes in question. Pay attention at the 2:45 mark as Broadwell discusses what appears to be Jennifer Griffin's aforementioned report from earlier that day:



Something that needs to be cleared up...

Did Broadwell get information about the annex taking prisoners from Jennifer Griffin's report that she made reference to or was it separate?

If Griffin reported on October 26th that there were prisoners at the annex and Broadwell talked about that report later that evening while making specific reference to it, how did Broadwell divulge secret information?

Video: Trey Gowdy says Petraeus will come before Congress (affair or not)

If, as Lt. Col. Ralph Peters seems to suspect, the news of David Petraeus' affair was released by the Obama administration in response to the former CIA Director getting cold feet about testifying in front of a Congressional committee is true, it may be in the process of backfiring.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), one of the bulldogs in the Fast and Furious investigation appeared on Greta and said that either Petraeus will appear as a volunteer witness or he will be subpoenaed.

Via GWP: