FBI denies reporter killed in car crash was under investigation
WASHINGTON — Reporter Michael Hastings was researching a story about a privacy lawsuit brought by Florida socialite Jill Kelley against the Department of Defense and the FBI when the Rolling Stone journalist died in a car crash this week.
Hastings, 33, was scheduled to meet with a representative of Kelley next week in Los Angeles to discuss the case, according to a person close to Kelley. Hastings wrote for Rolling Stone and the website BuzzFeed.
The FBI said on Thursday that Hastings was never under investigation by the agency.
Kelley alleges that military officials and the FBI leaked her name to the media to discredit her after she reported receiving a stream of emails that were traced to Paula Broadwell, a biographer of former CIA director David H. Petraeus, according to her lawsuit. Petraeus resigned from the CIA after publicly admitting that he and Broadwell had carried on an extramarital affair.
Since Hasting's death early Tuesday, wild conspiracy theories have bloomed on the Internet implying that he was murdered by powerful forces wanting to silence him.
On Wednesday night, the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks inserted itself into the story, publishing a message on Twitter that Hasting had contacted a lawyer for the organization hours before his car smashed into a tree on North Highland in Los Angeles.
The message read: “Michael Hastings contacted WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson just a few hours before he died, saying that the FBI was investigating him.”
The crash is under investigation. The cause of death is pending the results of toxicology tests.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- $1.5B more a year — from fees tacked onto phone bills — earmarked for faster Internet
- Study: At least 786 child abuse victims died despite being on protective services’ radar
- Use of U.S. steel to fix Alaska terminal causes rift with Canada
- End ‘mindless’ military spending caps, Aerospace Industries Association says
- Health care law sign-up deadline extended
- U.S., Cuba patching torn relations with historic accord
- Republican lawmakers vow to block confirmation of any potential ambassador to Cuba
- Castle doctrine doesn’t hold up in Montana murder case
- Lifting limits on Cuba a boon for U.S.
- Congress’ legacy: Way worse than ‘do-nothing’ one of 1947-48
- Fracking essentially banned in N.Y.