General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow in the hell does the POTUS not know
that the head of the CIA is under investigation??
Does not compute. Seriously, someone explain this to me.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)Patraeus? The entire military? Who?
You stage a coup by fucking your biographer?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)brooklynite
(94,950 posts)..."hacking the voting machines" was getting a little stale....
snooper2
(30,151 posts)And explain how generals fucking women with nice breasts was relevant?
former9thward
(32,136 posts)He knew in the summer. So he didn't tell Obama to stage a coup?
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)specifically stating "Holder knew?"
former9thward
(32,136 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)the investigation. From the article you linked to:
The disclosure policy was reinforced in a 2007 memorandum by Michael Mukasey, who was then attorney general under President George W. Bush. The memorandum, issued in the wake of the scandal over the firings of U.S. attorneys, sought to remind department employees that contacts with the White House and Congress about pending criminal matters were off limits.
These laws were created after Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal(s), his "Saturday Night Massacre" and John Mitchell's gamesmanship.
I excerpted an article from the Guardian, below. I can't help but wonder when the American media will start reminding folks of those post Watergate laws.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)They were hoping to catch Obama with his pants down, and it blew up in their faces.
Now heads are rolling!
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)The FBI also looked into whether a separate set of emails between Petraeus and Broadwell might involve any security breach. That will be a key question Wednesday in meetings involving congressional intelligence committee leaders, FBI deputy director Sean Joyce and CIA deputy director Michael Morell.
A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the investigation, said the FBI had concluded relatively quickly and certainly by late summer at the latest that there was no security breach. Absent a security breach, it was appropriate not to notify Congress or the White House earlier, this official said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10527838
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)No one told him.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)but congress wants to find out. Feinstein is very concerned.
B2G
(9,766 posts)BainsBane
(53,127 posts)There is a lot the public doesn't know yet. Why should you find that surprising? We have to wait for more information.
democrat_patriot
(2,774 posts)He had an affair. You don't bother the Prez with that, you might call his chief of staff....
B2G
(9,766 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)I don't know the answer.
flamingdem
(39,336 posts)Seems to be all about chain of command, oversight now
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Makes me uneasy about what else he's not being told.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's the CIA. They exist before and after every President. They probably run the world on their own.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)and didn't tell POTUS.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)Plausabile denialability about WHAT?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)WTF. Seriously?
Carolina
(6,960 posts)They good at coups and covert ops
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)BainsBane
(53,127 posts)and all reporting so far confirms that.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)went to Cantor (his Party's Congressional Whip), who went to FBI Director Mueller, who told the Whip to shut up about it. That's how the President didn't know.
Mueller or Petraeus (who was interviewed 2 weeks ago by the FBI) would have had to tell Obama. Neither of them did, apparently.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)And there is no evidence they are working for the President, rather than their Party.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Both men proved themselves politically reliable and able to keep their mouths shut and willing to go along with White House deceptions. Mueller we've all know about since Iran-Contra, Petraeus you may need to read up on (see,"Petraeus was the Original Official Source of Iraq "Biotrailers" WMD Deception", http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021782490 )
For some reason he hasn't explained to us, Obama has until now chosen to maintain or promote -- rather than to challenge or replace -- these guys. Why is open to interpretation. What do you think?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Presidents aren't supposed to be in the loop for criminal investigations (given the abuses of Hoover, Nixon et al, a wise policy).
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)improper influence on it, or have a heads-up to get rid of evidence, documents, etc.? I would agree with this.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)opponents, etc.
That's the kind of crap Karl Rove and the Bush DOJ pulled.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)this was head of the CIA, not a donor.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)BainsBane
(53,127 posts)He was under investigation.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)criminal activity?
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)for a personnel matter, not criminal activity.
B2G
(9,766 posts)My Pet Goat
(413 posts)by disclosing preliminary criminal investigation information to people who might be "interested" about the investigation. So guess the fuck what, they tend not to do it. Surprises of all surprises. Even that low level of subtlety however will escape the "common sense" conspiratorialist.
My Pet Goat
(413 posts)investigation to Cantor, what is happening to that person now? An ethical and professional conduct investigation and no doubt his name will be outed soon by the press. He may also get swept up into legal proceedings involving Jill Kelley and Paula Broadwell as an actor rather than government witness.
My Pet Goat
(413 posts)some people think their common sense is "universal" that trumps history (assuming they even know the history).
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Neither did a whole lot of other people, but that was due to leaks.
TVet
(15 posts)They know far far more about things than they ever admit.
lamp_shade
(14,851 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)if he had commented on this before the election. I suspect the Wurlitzer would have been amped to 12 or 13 on Obama's "October Surprise" against Romney. I suspect he had plausible deniability on this story and I'm not sure anyone had the total picture before the election...I see no upside for Obama to have introduced any half-baked comments on any facet of this story days before the election
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Director very soon.
Lochloosa
(16,083 posts)2. Petraus should have been considered innocent. Letting the political end of the government know about it would almost certainly caused it to leak. If there was nothing to the allegations, an innocent mans reputation could have been destroyed.
3. You don't go to the boss till you have the right answer. They would have gotten around to letting him know once it was determined a crime or national security was at risk.
I could go on.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Not telling him until you have the right answer is what toadies to dictators do. Even if there was no crime or national security at risk, this was a scandal waiting to be aired all over the country, as it had been. Obama should have known there was a suspicion of something unsavory that could go public in the worst way.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)how many affairs are going on among gov't officials now?
is he supposed to know all of them? is he supposed to deal with all of them publicly?
are you yearning for J. Edgar Hoover?
dang, people don't even think through what they want anymore.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)In every other sense it is none of our damn business unless it involves harassment by a superior co-worker. Humans fuck. I STILL haven't figured out why Congress wasted so much time over a blow job.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)EC
(12,287 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)until it crosses a threashold of security. The intitial investigation started out about harassing e-mails, hardly something to bring to the attention of the Whitehouse.
butterfly77
(17,609 posts)I am still waiting for him to show up in front of the microphones,he and Paul Ryan seemed to enjoy it so much during the President's first term.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)nt
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)It's so cute.
lindysalsagal
(20,791 posts)It's not what you type: It's who you know.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)What if the CIA were holding captives at either the Consulate or the Annex and interrogating them? There would be all kinds of hell to pay if the President signed an Executive Order banning the CIA from detaining captives, then OK'd their capture, imprisonment, and interrogation by the CIA.
They're all politicians and as such they ALL talk out of both sides of their mouth... There is NO SUCH THING as a trustworthy politician.
"I'm not saying it's okay to do it; we BOTH know it can be done. But, if you did it, I wouldn't want to know about it."
Boom. Then when the shit really hits the fan, I can say "You know what? I didn't know a thing about this until you asked me about it." Hearing adjourned.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Ter
(4,281 posts)But my question is, what happens if it's proven that he knew?