What was Michael Hastings investigating when he died?

[MADem]

Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Who saw this article, and what did you think when you saw it?

http://www.cbs12.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/25f27bf1-www.cbs12.com.shtml

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Journalist Michael Hastings' wife says her husband was not working on a story about Florida socialite Jill Kelley when he died in a single-car wreck in Los Angeles last week.
Elise Jordan tweeted Tuesday that she wanted to correct the record after seeing erroneous reports. Jordan declined to comment.

Jill Kelley was "NOT" the story in that imbroglio that brought her to the public's attention, either. She got a lot of notice because she was a faux ambassadress to South Korea, she knew every General and Admiral and all their lineal numbers, and -- to my mind--she didn't look like she "belonged" in those circles. She was a catalyst to the story, but she wasn't the main event.



So....what -- or who -- was Hastings investigating? If the story wasn't Jill Kelley, what was it?

PETRAEUS?

We know Jill Kelley KNEW Petraeus; she knew him when he was still on active duty. She knew his wife. What else did she know??

I have long harbored a theory that the Petraeus - Broadwell affair started WAY sooner than he claimed. Perhaps Hastings had evidence of this. Perhaps his story wasn't ABOUT Jill Kelley, but perhaps Jill Kelley was a SOURCE for this story..?

Why is it important? Why would anyone care?

Well, you get your military retirement pay based on the last rank you held ... HONORABLY. There have been a number of junior Generals/Admirals who get "busted" down to Colonel/USNCaptain because they were fiddling around as a one star. If Petraeus was screwing Broadwell while he was on active duty, and Hastings had absolute, no bullshit, no questions PROOF of it, then the General would have to be recalled to active duty, disciplined, and busted down to three star. Then he'd have to repay all that difference in pay he's been getting since his retirement date. It's a shitload of money--not chump change. He might also get fined for lying. It's unlikely he'd go to jail, because that's how they roll--they go on the "humiliation is enough" standard for the bigwigs. But if that sort of thing was conclusively revealed--maybe a secret video of them snuggling, or a love letter, or something--there would be consequences.

Now, again, this is just pure speculation, and nothing but, so if you don't like that sort of thing, please just hit TRASH THREAD now--I don't really need to know how much you hate gossip, or speculation, or guessing, or chit-chat--if you don't like it, fine, just move on.

But it is a "CIA" story and it also fits in Hastings' portfolio at LA Buzz Feed to do National Security AND Entertainment news. It's a two-fer!

I'm not saying anyone killed him because of this, mind you. I think we have to wait for the tox reports for starters....

What I am saying, though, is if he had absolute proof of something many of us suspect is the case anyway, AND he was going to publish and take down yet ANOTHER General, well, that would be pretty doggone BIG, IMO.

I just wonder if that wasn't what he was going after? Maybe Jill Kelley knew more than she realized? She certainly had friends in high places, as it were:








These lovebird snaps are supposedly "pre-affair" pictures--am I the only one who believes this assertion strains credulity?









They look more like engagement photos to me~!

Thoughts? Opinions?

[dkf]

1. Why does it have to be connected to Petraeus at all?

That's not big enough for him to say the sort of things he did.

[Democracyinkind]

2. A wild guess

I always had the feeling that the repubs were trying something with Patraeus that exploded in their faces. Something to "bring down Obama". Maybe Hastings uncovered some evidence of that plot. this is nothing but a wild guess.

This is not meant as a motive for his "killing". I just have this notion that this is what the story was about. But again, this is just speculation.

[MADem]

4. Was Petraeus cooperating, do you think, or was he resisting?

Could someone trying to push him one way or another threatened him with reporting his indiscretions if he didn't cooperate?

[Democracyinkind]

5. I think he was on the fence.

"Could someone trying to push him one way or another threatened him with reporting his indiscretions if he didn't cooperate?"

That's what I was thinking. But it is a very wild guess.

[MADem]

6. Oh, hell--all I'm doing is speculating, myself. Wildly!

And I'll admit it freely to anyone who asks!

But remember that the story came out that Hastings was "doing a story on" Jill Kelley...and then I read that he was going to talk to someone representing her...and then out comes his widow saying, "No, the story is not 'about' Jill Kelley..."

That made me think that, to swipe a few terms from grand juries, that she was "not the target," she was simply a "subject," or a "witness" if you will. She could corroborate some information that was important. That's why he wanted to talk to her...!

[Democracyinkind]

7. I'm quite happy to see that I'm not the only one thinking this.

I'm even happier to notice that it is the esteemed MADem who is thinking along the same lines.

I think this is a story worth following. But without our interested nosyness it will disappear by the end of the week.

[MADem]

8. Maybe he kept electronic notes...? And his wife has access to them...?

I think the LA Times, who reported the Kelley connection, should go back to the "source" and see if they can get more detail out of them. Kelley as a "source" for a larger story about Petraeus makes absolute sense...maybe the guy had a wandering eye even before Broadwell? Talk about 'ripe for compromise!'

Here is how that whole Jill Kelley thing was INITIALLY reported:

Recently, Hastings was said to be researching the case of Jill Kelley, the woman involved in the story of the affair between Gen. David Petraeus and biographer Paula Broadwell, a source had told The Los Angeles Times.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-hastings-crash-site-memorialized-573315

I know reporters sometimes like "themes." And the theme of naughty Generals is certainly a compelling one. I can't help but wonder if the story Hastings had his eye on wasn't Petraeus. He went away QUICK, didn't he? Gave his "I have sinned..." statement and ran like a rabbit. He popped up and gave a speech or two, and then he put his head back down. You have to wonder if he was relieved to be out of a mess...?

Many do not realize that Hastings' wife is not without her own influence. She worked high in GOP circles, at the White House for Bush, and also for Condi Rice when she was SECSTATE. So the wife isn't just some clueless person who doesn't know which way the wind blows--she's surely got sources of her own. I'm quite sure she's devastated, but I imagine she also wants to know why her husband was running all over hell at four in the morning, and if it had anything to do with this latest story he was covering.

I suppose, if Petraeus had been compromised, and his successor had managed to repair most of the damage (or so they thought) the organization would have an interest in mitigating any release of embarrassing information. Maybe that's what was happening, and that's what Hastings learned? In that case, it wouldn't be surprising if "feds" --not from the FBI, though-- might be nosing around trying to find out what he knew. It wouldn't mean they killed him, but that kind of thing might make a person nervous and fearful.

I'd love to see the other shoe drop. It's probably something far more pedestrian than my musings, but you never know...! If you'd told me a month ago that a guy named Snowden was going to play "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?" with the US government, I'd have laughed and said "What amusing fiction!" But what's happening there, you couldn't write it as a screenplay and have anyone call it plausible! Truth IS stranger than fiction, more often than not!

[MADem]

3. It doesn't "have to be"--but what if it is?

If a senior administration official can lie about one thing, what else might he be lying about?

Could he have been coerced in some fashion because someone else knew his secret and threatened him with evidence that would bring him down? Maybe he was glad to pack up and leave, and admit to a little bit of schtuping, because he was operating under a sword of Damocles and compromising himself to keep a secret?

Pull the string--it's not "just" about sex. It's about integrity, secrecy, compromised positions, the need to keep things under wraps...what would people do to keep things covered up? How far would they go to protect their reputation, to preserve their dignity and their place in history?

Looked at through that (pardon the term) prism, who knows?

[proverbialwisdom]

9. @mmhastings's profile photo:

[img][/img]

https://twitter.com/mmhastings


Michael Hastings ?@mmhastings 9 Jun

Senator @RonWyden Do you think we need 2013 version of the Church Committee? Your comment in 140 character or less would be appreciated.

[proverbialwisdom]

10. More.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/11/guess-whos-not-getting-invited-piers-morgans-christmas-party/58938/

Guess Who's Not Getting Invited to Piers Morgan's Christmas Party

[img][/img]

VIDEO:

With a characteristically impassioned rant about David Petraeus's career, Michael Hastings made himself the star of Piers Morgan Tonight on Monday. Which is funny because Piers Morgan is supposed to be the star of the show. It's called Piers Morgan Tonight, after all, not Michael Hastings Tonight.

The segment is worth watching in full. Appearing alongside Gen. Mark Kimmit, a personal friend of Petraeus, and Lt. Col. Rick Francona, a retired Air Force intelligence officer, Hastings lit into Petraeus like a Rolling Stone reporter going after Gen. Stanley McCrystal. Obviously, they're talking about David Petraeus's affair and what it means, but Hastings seemed like he just wanted to talk about Petraeus. This is just the beginning of Hastings' monologue -- and yes it was a monologue contrary to the best efforts of Piers Morgan to shut him up:

"The larger point that I've been making is that essentially the media has played a role in protecting David Petraeus and promoting David Petraeus and mythologizing David Petraeus. And we saw it here tonight. Gen. Kimmit who was a spokesperson in Bagdhad who was a roommate of Petraeus who was involved in one fo the biggest debacles in recent foreign policy history is on TV defending David Petraeus without actually addressing the real problems with David Petraeus's record. And those are: the fact that he manipulated the White House into escalating in Afghanistan. He ran a campaign Iraq that was brutally savage, included arming the worst of the worst -- Shi'ite death squads, Sunni militia men -- and then you go back to the training of the Iraqi Army program that also had similar problems. … "

If you've been following any of Hastings' coverage of the Petraeus affair, you won't be at all surprised by the former Rolling Stone and current BuzzFeed reporter. On Sunday, Hastings published a vicious critique of pretty much Petraeus's entire career, in which he calls the general "a world-class bullshit artist," among other things. Hastings admits in the same breath, "I've covered him for seven years now, and he'll always have my respect and twisted admiration."

<>