On Nov. 10, CIA Chief Petraeus resigned from his post because the FBI had found his affairs in Broadwell’s email. On Nov. 20, we have such a news:
Obviously, the FBI activates its accessories in Senate to change the law to justify its action on the CIA Chief. The cause they applied on Petraeus case is weak, fragile and unreasonable.Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants
by Declan McCullagh
| November 20, 2012
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.
CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
What made the FBI crossing the path to create a scandal? There must be a reason. I think it was a potential extortion case. The FBI tried to blackmail CIA Chief Petraeus with the affair scandal but failed. Then we saw such a stage show.In unusual CIA case, FBI detoured from usual path
By RICHARD LARDNER | Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP)— The way the FBI responded to Jill Kelley's complaint about receiving harassing emails, which ultimately unraveled or scarred the careers of ex-CIA Director David Petraeus and Marine Gen. John Allen, is the exception, not the rule.
The FBI commonly declines to pursue cyberstalking cases without compelling evidence of serious or imminent harm to an individual, victims of online harassment, advocacy groups and computer crime experts told The Associated Press.
Instead, the FBI considered this from the earliest stages to be an exceptional case, and one so sensitive that FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Eric Holder were kept notified of its progress.
Civil liberties groups have criticized the FBI for pursuing the investigation of the emails to Kelley because there is no indication the messages contained any threatening language or classified information. The episode underscores the need to strengthen the legal protections for electronic communications, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.