Will he repeat?
Our corrupt attorney general, Eric Holder, is spreading more disinformation again. Just as he lied to cover his behind in Fast and Furious, he is lying to explain why he (supposedly) didn't advise President Obama about the Petraeus investigation until the DAY AFTER THE ELECTION.
David Truman in PJ Media uses logic and common sense to rebut that claim.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/more-hot-air-from-white-house-and-eric-holder/
Here is my not-so-twisted theory: Holder advised Obama about it as soon as he learned about it, which was as soon as Petraeus' name turned up in the matter. In fact, it is highly questionable that the FBI would have gotten involved in a case involving Jill Kelley getting nasty e-mails in the first place except for the fact that she had a friend in the FBI (the guy without the shirt) who decided to personally involve himself in an investigation.
If Holder learned in September, as reported, then after September 11, with all Hell breaking loose over Benghazi and an election coming up, it was likely decided to keep it under wraps until an opportune time to hit Petraeus with it-either to get him to play ball or get rid of him after the election.
"Makes sense to me."
"Roger that."
4 comments:
Shades of F&F!!!!! In either case, Obama almost certainly knew what was up fairly early on. You can ask Gary, but if DEA actually furnished a controlled substance, particularly in a significant quantity, into a foreign country, I could be wrong but I would bet the mortgage that at least the "White House" would be advised. And if the aide did not advise the Chief of Staff, who in turn did not notify the Pres., bot would be derelict in their duties.
I say this because there is a principle in the law that supervisors/managers either "knew", or "should have known" (the terms are always used interchangeably) what their subordiantes were up to.
Personally been there, done that, when some of my hired hands went ahead and did stuff that I specifically instructed them NOT TO DO. A Federal judge held that those instructions notwithstanding, I "knew or should have known" that they would be disobeyed, and a monetray judgement agains my employer was upheld.
I have not watched much TV or read much of anything for several days (been involved in more important stuff, Bingoing,casinoing, etc.) about all of this crud, but I believe it was Squid who posted on a previous occasion about it,
"Today, in our local newspaper, a front page blurb states that the Obama administration had taken out the Al Qaeda information so that Al Qaeda would not know that the U.S. knew it was them that launched an attack. So, the citizens of the U.S. were lied to in order to mislead Al Qaeda...".
I have not read or heard that info other than in Squid's post. Should it be true, it is just another case of incompetency and the blind leading the blind. Said otherwise, it indicates a lot of dopes, to include Obama, whose jobs are so secret that even they do not now what they are doing.
OF COURSE Holder advised Obama of the Petraeus investigationback in the summer, well before the election, and the skinny was withheld until after, for the reasons Gary itemized, and no doubt others as well.
To believe otherwise defies both logic and common sense. Please remember that evidence of absence is not necessarily, and quite frequently in fact is not, the equivalent of evidence of absence.
Elwood,
Right. With benghazi and Fast and Furious we have two scandals that dwarf Watergate. Nobody died in Watergate, but in both of these, people have died. US officials, no less because of the criminal negligence of this administration.
And the media and over 50% of the people in country do not care.
Yeah Gary, perhaps I am being a little extreme (and then again, maybe not), but where, oh where, are a Republican House and Senate with large enough huevos when we need them to impeach and remove this fool. Never happen, but should??
Sorry about all the typos in previous post here.
Fifty percent of the people just didn't drink the same Kool-Aid that you did Gary. You have a vivid imagination. I bet you trembled in the dark as a child, whenever you were tucked in and the bedroom light turned off, because you MUST have sensed HORRIBLE monsters under the bed and hiding in the closets.
One distinction that seems to have escaped mr suggins:
If a U.S. agency INITIATES introducing a toxic banned substance into a foreign nation's economy, that would require prior APPROVAL.
If an FBI investigation into an anonymous email appears (after some advanced cyber-sleuthing) to point to the head of the CIA, all concerned would want to make damn sure they had this right and could back it up, no maybes, no possibility of being wrong, before putting their own careers on the line presenting a report to the President.
Duh-uh.
(Read "Day of the Jackal." When the head of security deduced that someone in the inner government circle was the source of a leak, he had to have irrefutable evidence available before saying so. He was told "You had better have some evidence to back that up." He did.)
Post a Comment