Am I missing something? The claims by Jill Kelly seem to be nonsensical, I am trying to figure out what was the big story that Michael Hastings investigated there? Was there another case that he investigated, which was the big story, not Jill Kelly story?
Posted on | June 23, 2013 | 2 Comments
I tried to search the case supposedly filed by Jill Kelly. I did not find the actual case on the docket yet, only her statements, which sound as total nonsense. So far I do not see any grounds for law suit by her and her husband. I read her statement that her and her husband’s reputation was tarnished, but I do not see any evidence of that. How was it tarnished? FBI had to release the e-mails in order to show justification for removal of Petraeus from his position. She actually came out looking like a law abiding citizen who did the right thing by reporting threats. So, the whole law suit appear to be with no basis. I do not know who filed it, so far I do not see the actual case on PACER, but so far it looks like nonsense. It looks more like an attempt of shakedown of the FBI and DOD, riding the wave of of disclosures regarding the surveillance by the feds. Does anyone know, who is the attorney representing them? Does anyone have the actual case? Was there another case Hastings investigated, which actually had something?
Comments
2 Responses to “Am I missing something? The claims by Jill Kelly seem to be nonsensical, I am trying to figure out what was the big story that Michael Hastings investigated there? Was there another case that he investigated, which was the big story, not Jill Kelly story?”
Leave a Reply












29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy, 
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld 

September 25th, 2013 @ 9:43 am
https://news.yahoo.com/govt-seeks-dismissal-petraeus-related-lawsuit-222127994–politics.html
its come about