'Shirtless' FBI Agent Who Hunted Petraeus Also Helped Stop LA Bombing

‘Shirtless’ FBI Agent Who Hunted Petraeus Also Helped Stop LA Bombing

Law • November 2012 • Views: 1,307

‘Shirtless’ FBI Agent Who Hunted Petraeus Also Helped Stop LA Bombing

The FBI agent responsible for the downfall of two of the military’s most respected generals helped stop a terrorist from bombing Los Angeles International Airport and shot a man who attacked him with a knife at the gates of a military base. And he kicked off an investigation that not only upended Washington, it has many wondering if the FBI exceeded its authority.

Meet Frederick W. Humphries II — finally. Humphries, identified by The New York Times, is the mystery Florida-based FBI agent central to the ongoing scandal that brought down CIA Director David Petraeus and threatens the career of the Afghanistan war commander. At nearly every key moment in the tawdry sex scandal, Humphries has been there, lurking in the shadows, sometimes without his shirt on. No wonder colleagues interviewed by the Times described him as “obsessive.” Even before anyone knew who he was, someone set up a parody Twitter account for him, @shirtlessFBIguy.

In 1999, Humphries used his French language skills to interrogate a Francophone suspect. And that helped the Bureau find and stop Ahmed Ressam from bombing LAX airport in what would come to be known as the Millennium Plot, according to a Seattle Times piece. Described as “wiry [and] high-energy,” the former Army officer unraveled the cover story of a member of the Millennium Plot by calling bull on the operative’s fake Quebecois accent. Eleven years later, Humphries would shoot and kill a “disturbed knife-wielding man” who attacked him at the gates of MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man

Jump to bottom

59 comments

CuriousLurker Thu, Nov 15, 2012 10:14:32am

I'm glad he was able to stop a terrorist, but nonetheless he seems kinda creepy.

Destro Thu, Nov 15, 2012 10:17:29am

re: #1 CuriousLurker

I'm glad he was able to stop a terrorist, but nonetheless he seems kinda creepy.

I assume all FBI are creepy. See J. Edgar Hoover.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:12:17am

It is not creepy.

He and his wife had a relationship/friendship with this woman, and the shirtless picture was sent long before this investigation.

It was one where he was at a firing range. It was not like a 'come on' style of picture. It was sent to her and her husband. Again long before this investigation.

This guy is being slandered because he didn't think it was appropriate to put the investigation results on hold until after the election.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:16:41am

re: #3 Buck

There's really no need for a conspiracy theory. It's being reported that he sent shirtless pictures and sensationalized because sensationalism is cool.

Do you have anything to back up your conspiracy theory?

Destro Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:21:02am

re: #3 Buck

It is not creepy.

He and his wife had a relationship/friendship with this woman, and the shirtless picture was sent long before this investigation.

It was one where he was at a firing range. It was not like a 'come on' style of picture. It was sent to her and her husband. Again long before this investigation.

This guy is being slandered because he didn't think it was appropriate to put the investigation results on hold until after the election.

If that is true - wow - how fucked up is that - if true. Source?

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:24:39am

He has been characterized as wanting to rush the story 'in order to embarrass the President'.

Another way to say it is that he was concerned the FBI probe into Petraeus' affair had been stalled for political reasons (the election).

The people spreading the shirtless story are purposely leaving out the important details. I am not talking about the media. Yes, the media is reporting something that sounds sensational.

The people telling that part of the story to the media are trying to discredit him. There is no other reason to tell the story that way.

Again, this agent has known the Kelley family for years and the picture was sent to Kelley and her husband long before the harassing emails in question were received. Leaving out that detail is an attempt to discredit this individual.

Joanne Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:26:24am

re: #6 Buck

I'd talk with Cantor about why he held off saying anything.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:31:59am

re: #6 Buck

He has been characterized as wanting to rush the story 'in order to embarrass the President'.

By whom? I've read that someone said that was why. I've also read it was because of his personal relationship with Kelley.

Another way to say it is that he was concerned the FBI probe into Petraeus' affair had been stalled for political reasons (the election).

How does that make sense, though? What effect would it have on the election?

The people spreading the shirtless story are purposely leaving out the important details. I am not talking about the media. Yes, the media is reporting something that sounds sensational.

Who are you talking about, then? Can you give an example?

The people telling that part of the story to the media are trying to discredit him. There is no other reason to tell the story that way.

That you can't think of another reason doesn't mean there isn't one. This is one of the main problems with your thinking in general. For example, they could have a personal dislike for him and want to embarrass him, they could be professionally jealous of him, they could be an unhappy subordinate or boss, or they might just have heard it second-hand.

Again, this agent has known the Kelley family for years and the picture was sent to Kelley and her husband long before the harassing emails in question were received. Leaving out that detail is an attempt to discredit this individual.

Not every piece of bad sensationalist reporting is a grand conspiracy, Buck.

I'm not sure why you think this was delayed until after the election, though-- can you explain where you're getting that idea from?

It doesn't make a ton of sense. There's no real way this scandal taints Obama, people aren't blaming him for Petraeus cheating on his wife. Petraeus was one of the favorites for the GOP bid in 2016, as well. You do know that, right?

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:33:30am

re: #7 Joanne

I'd talk with Cantor about why he held off saying anything.

Cantor tried to champion this agent. It was exactly then that this 'shirtless photo' issue (which is not an issue at all) came out. Cantor had to back off as he watched the agent he was backing made to look like a love sick fool.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:38:09am

re: #9 Buck

The fact that the FBI agent was pressing about a case he was personally involved with-- where he was friends with the people making the complaint-- is, in fact, professionally unsound. Generally in law enforcement you're expected to keep your hands off cases where you have a personal involvement.

That he was close friends with her and her husband is a completely fine explanation for the shirtless photos-- not that he needs an explanation in my book, I shouldn't even have ever known about the innocent photos in the first place-- but it's still a professional problem for him to advocate cases where he has personal attachment.

This is going to turn into a conspiracy story nexus, Buck. Don't get sucked into it.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:41:27am

The FBI probe discovered evidence of the Petraeus-Broadwell affair months before the results were reported. The results were reported one day after the election.

This agent was NOT "pressing the case" as you characterize it. However he was concerned it was being stalled for political reasons.

That is not the same thing.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 11:43:30am

re: #11 Buck

The FBI probe discovered evidence of the Petraeus-Broadwell affair months before the results were reported. The results were reported one day after the election.

Yes, that is the kind of shit conspiracy theorists think constitutes 'proof'.

This agent was NOT "pressing the case" as you characterize it. However he was concerned it was being stalled for political reasons.

Can you explain the difference, please? And can you start sourcing where you're getting your information from?

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 12:10:57pm

You always like to mix up the word "proof" with "evidence".

The agent going to Rep Cantor long before this all came out is evidence of his concern. The delay of months is evidence that someone was not informing the President that his CIA director was having an affair, and might have been compromised.

I am not going to get sucked into your ridiculous questions that are only an attempt to change the subject.

If you can't find the source, then you should question if the places you go for information might be biased.

The agent has haired a lawyer, that lawyer has made a statement.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 12:15:01pm

re: #13 Buck

You always like to mix up the word "proof" with "evidence".

Really? Cite one other time I've done that.

You're submitting it, so far, as the only evidence you have that this was delayed politically for some reason, right?

The delay of months is evidence that someone was not informing the President that his CIA director was having an affair, and might have been compromised.

Yes, someone didn't do that. This may be for a variety of reasons. Again, you are making the assumption of a conspiracy rather than, say, the FBI keeping their cards close to their chest for whatever reason of their own.

You're unable to actually explain the main crux of your conspiracy theory: How one of the GOP hopefuls for 2016 having an affair would make Obama look bad or people less likely to vote for him. Or are you saying it was delayed because it'd hurt the GOP?

Destro Thu, Nov 15, 2012 12:25:21pm

re: #14 Obdicut

re: #13 Buck

Well you kind of pettifog shit up, Obdicut.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 12:28:06pm

re: #15 Destro

Thanks, destro. I'm glad you know the word pettifog. It's one of my favorites. I named a rowboat Pettifog once. Can you explain which of my points here you feel are quibbling over something insignificant?

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 12:33:06pm

It doesn't matter how I think it would have embarrassed the President.

It is how the Attorney General of the United States thought. The top cop must have been told about the results in the many months after the evidence was uncovered? Right? The FBI Chief?

You say he was a GOP hopeful. That is your opinion and speculation at best.

I say he was a member of the Obama administration, that is an indisputable fact.

You are free to ignore the scandal as it unfolds.

Your debating tactic is to ask inane questions, respond with more questions. Changing the subject slowly.

As an example you would love to back up your speculation that no one would think that CIA Director David Petraeus had any relationship with the Obama administration and that the public would see him only as one of the favorites for the GOP bid in 2016.

That would be the debate you want to have.

Not biting.

I state my opinion. You are free to disagree. We will see what happens.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 12:40:03pm

re: #17 Buck

It doesn't matter how I think it would have embarrassed the President.

Yes, it does. It's the crux of your conspiracy theory, the motive for action.

It is how the Attorney General of the United States thought. The top cop must have been told about the results in the many months after the evidence was uncovered? Right? The FBI Chief?

The attorney general isn't the FBI chief. He may have been told, and he may have decided not to inform the president, again, for whatever reasons, of which there would be plenty that aren't "because it would embarrass him".

You say he was a GOP hopeful. That is your opinion and speculation at best.

Ah, okay. I just made up all the stuff about him being one of the possible GOP contenders in 2016. I'm weird that way.

I say he was a member of the Obama administration, that is an indisputable fact.

Well, yeah. He was. I'm not sure why you're making this point.

Do you really, really think that voters wouldn't vote for Obama because Petraeus had an affair?

You are free to ignore the scandal as it unfolds.

No thanks.

Your debating tactic is to ask inane questions, respond with more questions. Changing the subject slowly.

I haven't changed the subject. We're talking about the FBI investigation into Petraeus, the timeline on which it unfolded, and the reasons why it did so. That is, in fact, the subject of the thread. What do you think the subject is?

As an example you would love to back up your speculation that no one would think that CIA Director David Petraeus had any relationship with the Obama administration and that the public would see him only as one of the favorites for the GOP bid in 2016.

BUt I didn't say that no one would think that Petraeus had any relationship with the Obama administration. That'd be a really dumb thing to say. I did say I don't think people wouldn't vote for Obama because of Petraeus having an affair. If you don't want to explain the motive behind your conspiracy theory, that's okay.

But it does leave it a little bit toothless-- without an actual reason for there to be a coverup, alleging there was a coverup is kinda weird.

Most of the attempted scandals are like this. It's a conspiracy theory without a basic motive, like the bizarre Benghazi conspiracy theories. It's one of the reasons they fall so flat and only the GOP circle-jerk takes them seriously.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 12:45:14pm

There certainly is a motive, and I have stated it.

You just don't agree with it.

You are asking me to prove it. To "back it up". That is not necessary.

It certainly does not mean that I have not put forward a motive.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 12:50:00pm

re: #19 Buck

There certainly is a motive, and I have stated it.

You've said it's to avoid embarrassing the president.

Does the president seem embarrassed by the scandal? I mean, not on a personal level, but politically? Do you actually see anyone other than the usual right-wing blowhards who think Petraeus's affair was in any way Obama's fault or reflects badly on him?

You are asking me to prove it. To "back it up". That is not necessary.

I'm honestly curious why you feel anyone would possibly believe your conspiracy story without you even putting the minimum effort of backing it up in the least.

It certainly does not mean that I have not put forward a motive.

Okay, so your motive is that to avoid embarrassing the president (which it hasn't) some person's unknown decided to delay the investigation until after the election. You have no proof for this whatsoever, no proof that the investigation was delayed so as not to arise during the election, no proof that this actually embarrasses Obama or would make anyone less likely to vote for him, no evidence that, if it was delayed that the reason was to avoid embarrassing Obama, no direct allegation as to who it was who delayed it.

I'm totally fine with your argument being at this level. What's surprising is that you are.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:18:59pm

There you go again mixing up the word proof with evidence.

EVIDENCE that the investigation was delayed so as not to arise during the election: An FBI Agents concern that he felt was so important that he took it to Eric Cantor.

EVIDENCE that the investigation was delayed so as not to arise during the election: There was a period of months after the proof of the affair was uncovered before it was exposed, and it was exposed the day after the election.

We don't know if this actually embarrasses Obama or would make anyone less likely to vote for him. We don't know that today, and we don't know what would have happened if this had been exposed months ago.

However, today we do see evidence that the President will not answer questions citing an ongoing criminal investigation. Despite the fact that so far this matter is not criminal but only a judgement error on the part of the CIA Director. Pretending that he can't answer questions about the scandal does make him seem embarrassed.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:38:39pm

re: #21 Buck

There you go again mixing up the word proof with evidence.

I didn't mix it up, I used it on purpose.

EVIDENCE that the investigation was delayed so as not to arise during the election: An FBI Agents concern that he felt was so important that he took it to Eric Cantor.

Actually, he didn't take it to Cantor. Nobody is saying that. People are saying he took it to Humphries, but other people are saying he didn't, that it just filtered up. It's probably ass-covering on his part, but it might be true. Anyway, it wasn't Cantor.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

And again: That'd not evidence of why it was delayed. That is what you're missing, and what you don't have anything to support.

EVIDENCE that the investigation was delayed so as not to arise during the election: There was a period of months after the proof of the affair was uncovered before it was exposed, and it was exposed the day after the election.

That's very weak evidence, though. Especially if the aim was to avoid 'embarassing' Obama, it would have been revealed immediately, because whatever embarrassment would entail from it would have been gone long before the election. So that point kind of works against you.

However, today we do see evidence that the President will not answer questions citing an ongoing criminal investigation. Despite the fact that so far this matter is not criminal but only a judgement error on the part of the CIA Director. Pretending that he can't answer questions about the scandal does make him seem embarrassed.

To right-wing people inside their bubble, sure. To ordinary Americans? No. The FBI is investigating something and Obama isn't going to comment on it because that'd be improper. I'm interested in why you think this isn't an ongoing criminal investigation, though. Can you explain that bit?

Joanne Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:38:46pm

re: #21 Buck

EVIDENCE that the investigation was delayed so as not to arise during the election: An FBI Agents concern that he felt was so important that he took it to Eric Cantor.

That EVIDENCE that was handed over to an extremely partisan congressman who would have used it in a heartbeat had it damaged Obama.

That's hardly EVIDENCE.

As to why the POTUS won't talk about an ongoing investigation...isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Or do you want the whole, er, affair tried in the press?

EVIDENCE. HA!

Joanne Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:39:31pm

re: #22 Obdicut

I thought this guy took the information to another rep who then took it to Cantor.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:41:19pm

re: #23 Joanne

That EVIDENCE that was handed over to an extremely partisan congressman who would have used it in a heartbeat had it damaged Obama.

That's hardly EVIDENCE.

Heh, yeah, good point. Obviously Cantor was in on the fix to protect Obama because that makes a fuckload of sense.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:42:05pm

re: #24 Joanne

I thought this guy took the information to another rep who then took it to Cantor.

The post story backs off from even that, saying he mentioned it to someone else who took it to Humphries who took it to Cantor.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:48:37pm

re: #25 Obdicut

Obviously Cantor was in on the fix to protect Obama because that makes a fuckload of sense.

Absolutely no one is saying that.

see #9

We are going in a circle.

Destro Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:51:20pm

re: #16 Obdicut

Thanks, destro. I'm glad you know the word pettifog. It's one of my favorites. I named a rowboat Pettifog once. Can you explain which of my points here you feel are quibbling over something insignificant?

See, I did not say you did that here. It was just a general observational statement by me. But your reply was kind of what you do.....a quibbler of details

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:51:42pm

re: #27 Buck

Are you just not listening? I'm saying that the agent didn't take it to Cantor-- nobody has ever said that he did. Some people have said the agent took it to Humphries who then took it to Cantor. Others are saying the agent just mentioned it to an associate of Humphries.

And yeah, I get that you think there was also a conspiracy to smear the FBI agent with the 'shirtless' photos, too. I know you're not going to back this up because apparently you're above that sort of thing. I don't get why Cantor would have to back off-- can you explain that? Can you explain why Cantor wouldn't go to the press with anything at all he thought would embarrass Obama?

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:53:03pm

re: #28 Destro

See, I did not say you did that here. It was just a general observational statement by me. But your reply was kind of what you do.....a quibbler of details

Heh, that's adorable.

Okay, what detail did I quibble over in my reply to you, Destro?

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:53:48pm

Humphries had gone to Rep. Dave Reichart, R-Wash., when he became concerned the FBI probe into Petraeus' affair had been stalled for political reasons.

Humphries ALSO contacted House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor , R-Va., who then passed the message to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Before the agent was named, Cantor confirmed his contact with an FBI agent involved in the case.

Yes, that is evidence that he felt there was a stall in the investigation.

It is evidence that early on (before the election) a highly decorated and well though of FBI Agent had concerns and tried to have his concerns heard.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:57:26pm

re: #31 Buck

Humphries had gone to Rep. Dave Reichart, R-Wash., when he became concerned the FBI probe into Petraeus' affair had been stalled for political reasons.

Humphries ALSO contacted House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor , R-Va., who then passed the message to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Humprhies got set up with Cantor by Reichart, actually, is what's being reported.

Yes, that is evidence that he felt there was a stall in the investigation.

Well, sure. That's what the FBI agent felt, it appears. I don't think anyone has ever argued against that. What that isn't evidence of is why the case wasn't being pursued.

After all, you don't even think it's a criminal case, so why would the FBI pursue it?

And again:

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 1:57:27pm

re: #29 Obdicut

Can you explain why Cantor wouldn't go to the press with anything at all he thought would embarrass Obama?

His "witness" was made to look like a love sick puppy who could not be relied upon to be objective.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:01:42pm

re: #33 Buck

His "witness" was made to look like a love sick puppy who could not be relied upon to be objective.

Er, the story I'm reading now has Cantor finding this out only a week before the election and not having time to vet it properly. Where are you getting the narrative that he heard about it months before?

[Link: bostonglobe.com...]

An aide to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says the Virginia congressman first heard about CIA Director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair on Saturday, Oct. 27, from an FBI source he didn’t know.

Communications director Rory Cooper told The Associated Press Monday that Cantor notified the FBI’s chief of staff of the conversation, but did not tell anyone else because he did not know whether the information from an unknown source was credible. Petraeus resigned last week as the nation’s top spy because of the affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

The spokesman said the Oct. 27 conversation was arranged by Rep. Dave Reichert, a Washington Republican. Reichert had initially received a tip from an FBI source who was a colleague of the bureau employee who called Cantor.

Are you saying Cantor's spokesperson is lying?

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:04:27pm

re: #32 Obdicut

Humprhies got set up with Cantor by Reichart, actually, is what's being reported.

You just finished insisting that Humphries didn't take it to Cantor. You just told me that nobody has ever said that he did.

Some people have said the agent took it to Humphries who then took it to Cantor. Others are saying the agent just mentioned it to an associate of Humphries.

Humphries is the Agent.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:05:52pm

re: #34 Obdicut

Are you saying Cantor's spokesperson is lying?

No I am now saying you are when you say that I was espousing a "narrative that he heard about it months before".

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:09:05pm

re: #36 Buck

No I am now saying you are when you say that I was espousing a "narrative that he heard about it months before".

I'm sorry, Buck, I misunderstood you. When you said this came out 'early on'--

It is evidence that early on (before the election) a highly decorated and well though of FBI Agent had concerns and tried to have his concerns heard.

I thought you meant early on, not very close to the election. Subjective time, I guess. My apologies. And sorry for fucking up the Humphries everywhere thing, that was dumb.

Okay, so Cantor's explanation is that he had to vet the information and that's why he didn't go public or otherwise make a bigger deal of it. You're saying that his spokesperson is lying and that Cantor actually 'championed' the agent in some way but had to back off because the agent took some bad press. Do you have anything to support that allegation against Cantor?

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:13:38pm

re: #37 Obdicut

You're saying that his spokesperson is lying and that Cantor actually 'championed' the agent in some way but had to back off because the agent took some bad press. Do you have anything to support that allegation against Cantor?

I am not saying that anyone (besides you) is lying.

Rest of your paragraph is ignored as the basis for it is a lie.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:18:00pm

re: #38 Buck

I am not saying that anyone (besides you) is lying.

Rest of your paragraph is ignored as the basis for it is a lie.

Um, okay. You realize that your explanation of event's and Cantor's differ markedly. But you're not saying that he's lying about it. Okay, so he's just being circumspect or something? I'm having to guess, since you won't explain yourself.

In your version of events, Cantor champions the agent-- he definitely contacted Mueller and said he hoped he was aware of how serious this all was-- but then had to back off in some way because the stuff about the agent being shirtless (which turned out to be nothing) came out. I don't get why he'd have to back off-- the shirtless thing is pretty easily explained, and the affair and the investigation still really occurred.

Okay, what I really don't get is you alleging the shirtless stuff was used to make Cantor back off but by the time we heard about the guy being shirtless, the scandal had already broken in the media. Soo... how does that make any sense? Are you saying Cantor was told by someone that the shirtless photos existed and so he backed off?

Joanne Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:19:33pm

re: #39 Obdicut

There is no sense to it. I see twisting and turning to try to make Obama look bad. That is all I am seeing.

It's no different than McCain bitching and moaning about Benghazi. It's twisting and turning to make a pointless point.

Same as this whole comment thread.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:23:10pm

re: #40 Joanne

This one makes even less sense because Petraeus was firmly entrenched and liked in GOP politics. He was one of the choices that the GOP actually lauded.

There's a lot of 20/20 hindsight articles being written about how Petraeus was always a vain showoff, but back when he was picked the people who complained most were the far left.

He was a non-partisan choice that nearly everyone at the time thought was a good one.

Destro Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:33:49pm

re: #30 Obdicut

Heh, that's adorable.

Okay, what detail did I quibble over in my reply to you, Destro?

Like when I said you have a habit of misquoting (which I assumed was due to poor memory on your end but it was done enough to make it seem like a tactic) and your penchant for useless quibbling. I don't even agree with Buck on much but I do think you do that.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 2:37:30pm

re: #42 Destro

Like when I said you have a habit of misquoting (which I assumed was due to poor memory on your end but it was done enough to make it seem like a tactic) and your penchant for useless quibbling. I don't even agree with Buck on much but I do think you do that.

That's cool, man. I think you and Buck are pretty similar.

Joanne Thu, Nov 15, 2012 3:06:18pm

re: #41 Obdicut

This one makes even less sense because Petraeus was firmly entrenched and liked in GOP politics. He was one of the choices that the GOP actually lauded.

There's a lot of 20/20 hindsight articles being written about how Petraeus was always a vain showoff, but back when he was picked the people who complained most were the far left.

He was a non-partisan choice that nearly everyone at the time thought was a good one.

Exactly. IF Cantor had any reason to sit on this, what you said is why.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 3:28:49pm

Everything you keep asking me to explain, I have explained. You don't like my answers, but I have answered.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 3:50:48pm

re: #45 Buck

Everything you keep asking me to explain, I have explained. You don't like my answers, but I have answered.

No, you haven't. You haven't answered, for example, how Cantor was made to 'back off', or why your version of events contradicts Cantor's version of events. It really doesn't make sense for the shirtless photos smearing the agent to be effective, since those only came out after the scandal had already broken.

You also haven't made it clear why you think this isn't an active criminal investigation.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 4:16:49pm

re: #39 Obdicut

You realize that your explanation of event's and Cantor's differ markedly.

Classic Obdicut. Changing the subject, expecting this to be a debate about exactly what was going on in Cantors mind at a given time. It doesn't matter what Cantor believed or didn't. It doesn't matter why.

You spent the first half of the discussion saying that the Agent never contacted him, and that no one was saying that he had.

I have explained how Cantor was made to back off.

However, here is a simple summary of that exact point:

Cantor is contacted. He is told what is going on. Someone tells him that he should not link himself to this FBI agent as he is creepy and has sent shirtless photos of himself to one of the women involved in the scandal.

"he did not know whether the information from an unknown source was credible"

He did call the FBI’s chief of staff. Perhaps that is who told him that the source was a weirdo creep who sent a shirtless photo of himself to a woman involved in a scandal?

Wouldn't anyone question the credibility of a person who did that? (See Curiouslurker #1)

You THINK that only came out after the scandal had broken. You don't know that for a fact.

My "version" as you put it does NOT contradict Cantors spokesperson. It just has more detail.

No one has said that anyone committed any crime. The FBI’s focus was on whether laws were broken, in this case whether federal cyber-harassment statutes were violated. The FBI has emphasized many times that Petraeus himself was never the focus of the investigation, nor did it turn up evidence he broke any law.

You just don't want to admit that someone is peeing on your leg. "It might be raining" I hear you saying over and over.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 4:26:13pm

re: #47 Buck

You spent the first half of the discussion saying that the Agent never contacted him, and that no one was saying that he had.

No, I said he didn't bring it to him. He got brought to Cantor, as it were.

I have explained how Cantor was made to back off.

No, you haven't. As you'll now proceed to demonstrate.

Cantor is contacted. He is told what is going on. Someone tells him that he should not link himself to this FBI agent as he is creepy and has sent shirtless photos of himself to one of the women involved in the scandal.

Ah, okay. Who is this someone?

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 4:27:15pm

re: #47 Buck

No one has said that anyone committed any crime. The FBI’s focus was on whether laws were broken, in this case whether federal cyber-harassment statutes were violated. The FBI has emphasized many times that Petraeus himself was never the focus of the investigation, nor did it turn up evidence he broke any law.

The FBI is currently investigating whether or not a crime has been committed. True or false?

If false, what do you think the FBI is doing?

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 4:41:30pm

You have no idea what you are discussing. Normally you are able to connect a series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

It looks like you are now simply taking any contrary position!

I say "an FBI Agents concern that he felt was so important that he took it to Eric Cantor".

You say:

Actually, he didn't take it to Cantor. Nobody is saying that.

Are you just not listening? I'm saying that the agent didn't take it to Cantor-- nobody has ever said that he did.

I guess you are going to try and beat to death the words "take it to". The FBI Agent didn't take it to Cantor. The FBI Agent was taken to Cantor. As if that makes a significant difference.

It doesn't matter who told Cantor about the shirtless photo. It was someone who was trying to discredit the Agent, and make Cantor think twice about the agents credibility.

All of which I have said multiple times.

Buck Thu, Nov 15, 2012 4:44:43pm

Anyway, my hour is up and that is all the argument I have paid for.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 15, 2012 4:48:00pm

re: #50 Buck

I guess you are going to try and beat to death the words "take it to". The FBI Agent didn't take it to Cantor. The FBI Agent was taken to Cantor. As if that makes a significant difference.

It's not a very big difference, it's just a little one. But it shows there's more involved than just Cantor.

It doesn't matter who told Cantor about the shirtless photo. It was someone who was trying to discredit the Agent, and make Cantor think twice about the agents credibility.

Oh, you have absolutely no idea that anyone told Cantor about the shirtless photo, you're just assuming that happened because your conspiracy story demands it.

Okay, I get it now. Thanks.

Destro Thu, Nov 15, 2012 9:35:28pm

re: #52 Obdicut

re: #50 Buck

I guess you are going to try and beat to death the words "take it to". The FBI Agent didn't take it to Cantor. The FBI Agent was taken to Cantor. As if that makes a significant difference.

It's not a very big difference, it's just a little one. But it shows there's more involved than just Cantor.

Example of Obdicut's penchant for pettifoging noted for record. I said I would keep an eye out for examples for you.

Your welcome.

PS: Buck, at least Obdicut is not pettifoging you on how you use the word "we".

Obdicut Fri, Nov 16, 2012 2:07:14am

re: #53 Destro

re: #50 Buck

Example of Obdicut's penchant for pettifoging noted for record. I said I would keep an eye out for examples for you.

Your welcome.

PS: Buck, at least Obdicut is not pettifoging you on how you use the word "we".

Man, that experience must have been so traumatic for you. I feel for you blood.

The thing about pettifogging, though, is it's about talking about minor quibbles exclusively, or to avoid the big questions. That's what makes your accusation of it of me a silly thing: while I'm certainly debating points that aren't vital, I'm also debating points that are-- like why the hell Cantor wouldn't go public with this if he thought it'd damage Obama. So that kind of actually rules me out as a pettifogger.

I know you're not actually being serious, I mean, I know you're just taking a whack at me because what you do, but seriously, I'm not sure 'pettifog', while a beautiful word, is the masterstroke insult you were looking for.

It is going to delight me every time you say it, though, so I can't really complain.

It also makes me think of the H.M.S. Pinafore, for some reason. H.M.S. Pettifog, a ship where they quibble over the best way to shine the brass monkey.

Destro Fri, Nov 16, 2012 6:48:18am

re: #54 Obdicut

I wrote "your" rather than "you're" as bait which you did not take to your credit.

Also,

while I'm certainly debating points that aren't vital

Thank you for admitting you waste peoples time with your inane bullshit.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 16, 2012 9:21:28am

re: #55 Destro

I wrote "your" rather than "you're" as bait which you did not take to your credit.

I don't generally notice stuff like that. It's the interwebs.

Thank you for admitting you waste peoples time with your inane bullshit.

Oh, you're welcome. Not everything I say is of monumental importance. However, as I said, I don't talk about minor shit to avoid the big question, I just do it for completeness. You ignored that point to score your cheap shot, so well done on that score. That's very Buck-like.

Destro Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:14:30pm

re: #56 Obdicut

If we were in a Dutch coffee house I could blab all day long. But this is the internets and I am on a smartphone answering back while standing around for what passes for coffee in Manhattan. Cut to the chase and get to the point.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 16, 2012 2:15:47pm

re: #57 Destro

Heh. You're so freaking adorable, man. It's like you're a guy in a movie.

My point is that pettifogging is exclusively talking about unimportant things in order to cloud the issue. It's not just bringing up relatively trivial points while also tackling the big issues. It's about doing it in order to avoid talking about the important stuff. So it just makes no sense as an accusation against me, but it is a really kick-ass word.

Destro Fri, Nov 16, 2012 8:36:22pm

re: #58 Obdicut

Spare me the innocence routine. Your pettifogging is done in order to cloud the issue.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!