 |
| English: Official photo of David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Forensic Expert – Senior Author
It is easy to identify the law enforcement officer has a better home than his cohorts or a cabin on a lake that most millionaires couldn’t afford. These types of officers generally don’t use common sense that just may be the life style they are living is outside their financial status.
So how far does the corruption of law enforcement exists as you move up the chain of command? How many officers say no to a bribe where others under the right circumstances may say yes or do say yes? This statistic is one which would be difficult to determine because bribery of a public official is something most officers would not admit to doing or being a part of. The type of corruption isn’t defined only as a law enforcement official taking a bribe. This may be one aspect of the corruption, but what about the definition which includes lying to citizens of the United States by law enforcement directors and commanders who are in the position to protect and serve those citizens.
In the recent disclosure that the Director of the CIA David Petraeus was involved with an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, has raised the question about just how high does the corruption in law enforcement go? Some professionals would argue that having an affair with another woman other than your wife is not corruption it is just a lack of judgment.
The definition of what is law enforcement corruption then needs to be defined so all of law enforcement officials and officers are abiding by the same rules. It would not be fair that the law enforcement officer who is the head of a law enforcement agency should not have to abide by the same rules promulgated to all of his subordinates. There may be some type of parity to be found in this analogy but at this time it isn’t clear. It is difficult to understand when Director Petraeus steps outside the rules of his agency? This may lead others to wonder does it really matter what rank or responsibility an individual has, in order to have those sexual moments and times with a subordinate.
If the investigation of the Petraeus situation is an indicator that sexual relationships outside of marriage do occur, then the need to determine just how great of a problem is infidelity in the law enforcement agencies. Further, specifically what is the residual effect to the agency they work for or lead? The Petraeus situation is a great place to begin as the events surrounding his demise may have more coconspirators than which have been identified at this time. These coconspirators could include the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
The facts which have been uncovered to date reveal that Attorney General Eric Holder and National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper knew about the alleged extramarital affair involving Petraeus and Broadwell some six months ago. There is so much conjecture about how the affair began, why it happened, and most importantly how much intelligence was exchanged between the two.
If Holder and Clapper knew the affair was occurring and failed to take aggressive and proactive actions to stop the affair and there was the exchanging of classified and confidential top secrets of the United States of America, is it possible the cover-up for the four to six months they had knowledge about was happening could be considered a dereliction of duty on the part of Holder and Clapper. Both these men meet weekly with the President, and it is not reasonable or logical to assume that he didn’t know or didn’t want to know.
The information gathered to date indicates that one, not ten, but one Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agent was responsible for the initial investigation due to a complaint made by a family friend of Petraeus, a Jill Kelley. Reports indicate that the assigned FBI agent became too personally involved in the investigation and had to be pulled.
This is very interesting as the web which has been weaved appears to have created other hierarchical issues possibly many law enforcement organizations. There is a hierarchical process in most law enforcement agencies. In the FBI there is definitely a process in how a complaint is handled. In the Petraeus situation there was a complaint allegedly filed by a Ms. Kelley. Who she made the complaint to is unknown at this time, but whoever was in charge of receiving the complaint it eventually was assigned to Agent Frederick W. Humphries who is known by his peers as “relentless in his pursuit of what he sees as wrongdoing, which appears to describe his role in the FBI investigation involving the Petraeus matter.
Apparently, Humphries became frustrated with the manner of which the FBI was handling the complaint against Petraeus so he turned to Representative David Reichert for assistance, which then turned him to contact House majority leader, Eric Cantor, who passed him onto FBI Director Robert Mueller.
According to the New York Times, “By all accounts, Mr. Humphries doggedly pursued Ms. Kelley’s cyber stalking complaint. Though he was not assigned to the case, he was admonished by supervisors who thought he was trying to improperly insert himself into the investigation.” There is some dispute and confusion about specifically what role Humphries did play in the initial and follow-up investigations. Some have now labeled him as a whistle blower. His status with the FBI is unknown, but it appears he may have become personally involved in fact at one point of the investigation he sent out a picture of him without a shirt on next to two dummies which looked like him. The pose was not sexual nor was it recently taken. Allegedly, he sent the photo to multiple people he personally knew as well as Ms. Kelley.
So was Humphries the main reason the Petraeus conduct with Broadwell came to light in the public arena, when it appears the hierarchical men and women inside the FBI, National Intelligence, CIA, and the Attorney General’s office were apparently trying to hide the conduct of Petraeus. Moreover, the allegations made by Ms. Kelley against Petraeus and Broadwell couldn’t have come at a worse time for President Obama. President Obama was in the middle of the fight for his presidential office and the polls indicated that the presidential race was a close as it could be.
If the conduct of Petraeus would have surfaced the public may have had enough of the apparent incompetence of the President and those in his Cabinet. Remember, the President’s Cabinet and agencies over the past four years have had a multitude of problems, from excess spending to partying on tax payers dollars to sexual harassment allegations to other indications of divisiveness and incompetence amongst his staff.
It isn’t easy being the top Commander in Chief, but the responsibility for what happens throughout the law enforcement agencies rest on the shoulders of the President of the United States. Each law enforcement officer plays their role and makes decisions based upon their position, role, and responsibilities.
Yesterday, November 14th, after an eight month absence, there was a presidential press conference where President Obama made statements about the economy and then took questions from multiple reporters. During the question and answer phase many reporters wanted answers about the role of the FBI and who knew what and when about the Benghazi and Petraeus situations. The President referred the reporters to the FBI for answers or would not answer questions stating there is an active investigation occurring and it would be inappropriate for him to answer. His responses only raised more suspicion that he was not telling the truth and any information he would have supplied may have indicated there was indeed a cover-up.
This seems to be the mantra of the Whitehouse as earlier in the day and week agents i.e. Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney, referred reporters to contact the FBI to answer specific questions they had about the investigative process and results. Therefore, over the next couple of days, weeks, months, or maybe years Americans will be held at bay from receiving the truth because most of those in the law enforcement hierarchy will follow the mantra of their leader, President Obama.
The integrity of these federal law enforcement agencies from the bottom to the top will be diminished if the President doesn’t step-up and take responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, and with the situation surrounding the Petraeus matter.
What will happen to Agent Humphries? Will he too become the escape goat for those who are above him in rank, roles, and responsibilities? Will he be discarded for attempting to do his job? Humphries appears to be an excellent, competent, and intelligent officer which is dedicated to his profession. There appears to be some inappropriate actions that Humphries committed, but are these actions as inappropriate as those he works for i.e. FBI Director Robert Swan Mueller III, National Intelligence Director, James R. Clapper, Eric Himpton Holder the Attorney General of the United States, and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton the Secretary of State, and last but not least President Barack Hussein Obama.
Isn’t it time to answer the questions, stop the nonsense, and reestablish the integrity of the federal law enforcement agencies of the United States? The first step has to come from President Obama. There are four Americans dead and possibly national classified and confidential documents were distributed amongst a group of men and women who appears to have believed they were above
0 comments:
Post a Comment