HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How in the hell does the ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:37 PM

How 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.

70 replies, 3861 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply How in the hell does the POTUS not know (Original post)
B2G Nov 2012 OP
joeybee12 Nov 2012 #1
mfcorey1 Nov 2012 #2
B2G Nov 2012 #5
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #13
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #8
brooklynite Nov 2012 #18
snooper2 Nov 2012 #26
former9thward Nov 2012 #29
DonViejo Nov 2012 #34
former9thward Nov 2012 #61
DonViejo Nov 2012 #63
backscatter712 Nov 2012 #37
DonViejo Nov 2012 #47
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #3
B2G Nov 2012 #6
BainsBane Nov 2012 #11
B2G Nov 2012 #16
BainsBane Nov 2012 #21
democrat_patriot Nov 2012 #15
B2G Nov 2012 #19
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #56
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #20
flamingdem Nov 2012 #31
Cleita Nov 2012 #42
treestar Nov 2012 #4
BainsBane Nov 2012 #7
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #9
B2G Nov 2012 #12
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #58
B2G Nov 2012 #10
Carolina Nov 2012 #14
leftstreet Nov 2012 #17
BainsBane Nov 2012 #22
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #23
leveymg Nov 2012 #24
kentuck Nov 2012 #28
leveymg Nov 2012 #40
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #25
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #27
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #30
BainsBane Nov 2012 #33
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #38
BainsBane Nov 2012 #44
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #55
BainsBane Nov 2012 #59
B2G Nov 2012 #64
My Pet Goat Nov 2012 #41
My Pet Goat Nov 2012 #52
My Pet Goat Nov 2012 #32
Jennicut Nov 2012 #50
TVet Nov 2012 #35
lamp_shade Nov 2012 #45
Old and In the Way Nov 2012 #36
leveymg Nov 2012 #46
Lochloosa Nov 2012 #39
Cleita Nov 2012 #49
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #65
CreekDog Nov 2012 #43
HopeHoops Nov 2012 #51
HopeHoops Nov 2012 #48
EC Nov 2012 #53
Sheepshank Nov 2012 #54
butterfly77 Nov 2012 #57
Hutzpa Nov 2012 #60
Motown_Johnny Nov 2012 #62
cali Nov 2012 #66
lindysalsagal Nov 2012 #69
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #67
B2G Nov 2012 #68
Ter Nov 2012 #70

Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:40 PM

1. Because it was an attempted coup...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:41 PM

2. That makes sense to me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:42 PM

5. A coup? By who?

Patraeus? The entire military? Who?

You stage a coup by fucking your biographer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:47 PM

13. good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:44 PM

8. You mean a coup against Petraeus by CIA old-timers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:48 PM

18. I was wondering when a new conspiracy theory would get started...

..."hacking the voting machines" was getting a little stale....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:55 PM

26. can you give a rough high level outline of this "coup" please?

And explain how generals fucking women with nice breasts was relevant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:57 PM

29. A coup by Holder?

He knew in the summer. So he didn't tell Obama to stage a coup?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #29)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:01 PM

34. Will you please provide a link to an article

specifically stating "Holder knew?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to former9thward (Reply #61)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:09 PM

63. Thanks! The laws restricted the AG from telling the Prez about

the investigation. From the article you linked to:

However, U.S. officials briefed on the matter said the probe was closely held among officials at the FBI and Justice under a long-standing policy not to divulge information on continuing criminal investigations.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:04 PM

37. I believe the phrase is "October Surprise", or more succintly, Benghazi.

They were hoping to catch Obama with his pants down, and it blew up in their faces.

Now heads are rolling!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:14 PM

47. The administration obeyed post Watergate laws



Defending the notification timing, a senior federal law enforcement official pointed Monday to longstanding policies and practices, adopted following abuses and mistakes that were uncovered during the Nixon administration's Watergate scandal of the early 1970s. The Justice Department of which the FBI is part is supposed to refrain from sharing detailed information about its criminal investigations with the White House.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:42 PM

3. Easy.

No one told him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:43 PM

6. Why??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:46 PM

11. We don't know right now.

but congress wants to find out. Feinstein is very concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:47 PM

16. Well I'm glad she's 'concerned'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:50 PM

21. the point is the story is still unfolding

There is a lot the public doesn't know yet. Why should you find that surprising? We have to wait for more information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:47 PM

15. Because they had no reason to do so, national security was not an issue.


He had an affair. You don't bother the Prez with that, you might call his chief of staff....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrat_patriot (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:49 PM

19. What do we bother him with then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:17 PM

56. The real existential threat to America, pot smoking cancer grannies n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:50 PM

20. That's the question.

I don't know the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:59 PM

31. Because Diane is pissed?

Seems to be all about chain of command, oversight now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:12 PM

42. Yep, he was kept out of the loop.

Makes me uneasy about what else he's not being told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:42 PM

4. Doesn't surprise me

It's the CIA. They exist before and after every President. They probably run the world on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:43 PM

7. Reports are that Holder knew

and didn't tell POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:45 PM

9. "Plausible deniability"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:46 PM

12. What's to 'deny'?

Plausabile denialability about WHAT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:32 PM

58. That Obama knew of it before the election and decided not to make it public for political purposes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:45 PM

10. Yes, Holder evidently knew and didn't tell Obama

WTF. Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:47 PM

14. and they killed Kennedy

They good at coups and covert ops

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:48 PM

17. How do you know he didn't know? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:50 PM

22. Carney has said he didn't

and all reporting so far confirms that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:50 PM

23. ^^^ This ^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:52 PM

24. Ask Mueller or Petreaus that. It was an FBI investigation leaked by an FBI agent to a GOP Cong. who

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:57 PM

28. Both Mueller and Petraeus are Republicans...

And there is no evidence they are working for the President, rather than their Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:10 PM

40. That much is absolutely correct. Mueller was Bush Sr.'s appointee. Petraeus was promoted by Dubya.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:53 PM

25. It was a criminal investigation, not a national security one.

Presidents aren't supposed to be in the loop for criminal investigations (given the abuses of Hoover, Nixon et al, a wise policy).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:56 PM

27. Is that because they might kill the investigation, or otherwise exert

improper influence on it, or have a heads-up to get rid of evidence, documents, etc.? I would agree with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #27)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:58 PM

30. Exactly. Imagine if the President got briefings on every investigation into donors,

opponents, etc.

That's the kind of crap Karl Rove and the Bush DOJ pulled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:00 PM

33. He should have been told

this was head of the CIA, not a donor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:06 PM

38. Petraeus wasn't under investigation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:13 PM

44. That's not true

He was under investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #44)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:16 PM

55. Care to produce a link showing he was investigated for possibly

criminal activity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #55)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:04 PM

59. All of the news has reported he was under investigation

for a personnel matter, not criminal activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #55)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:40 PM

64. He was under investigation. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:11 PM

41. and also the investigators will expose themselves to liability

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to My Pet Goat (Reply #41)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:21 PM

52. As an example, think about the one person we know disclosed preliminary information from the

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:59 PM

32. Don't bother explaining it...

some people think their common sense is "universal" that trumps history (assuming they even know the history).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:15 PM

50. Totally. President Obama did not need to know.

Neither did a whole lot of other people, but that was due to leaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:01 PM

35. Dont believe BS POTUS knows

They know far far more about things than they ever admit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TVet (Reply #35)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:13 PM

45. Hey TVet - welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:03 PM

36. I think Obama knew...but, think about the consequences...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:14 PM

46. I think you're right. Mueller probably told O. If he didn't, I suspect there will be a new FBI

Director very soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:07 PM

39. Several reasons. 1. It's called the separation of powers.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lochloosa (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:15 PM

49. It seems you should tell the boss that there is a suspicion of something.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lochloosa (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:46 PM

65. Separation of powers? How so? CIA, FBI, and DOJ are all executive branch agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:12 PM

43. why would he know about an affair?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #43)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:17 PM

51. Seriously, who the fuck cares? The only one it matters to is the SO or spouse.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:15 PM

48. The CIA is an independent organization. The FBI is not. That's how.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:15 PM

53. no one told him... he's not Omnipotent.. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:15 PM

54. The FBI doesn't inform Senior Whitehouse Officials of internal investigations.........

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:20 PM

57. Ask Eric Cantor?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to butterfly77 (Reply #57)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:06 PM

60. This.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 05:11 PM

62. Maybe most everyone is under investigation all the damn time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:50 PM

66. gee, I posted this earlier today and it got hidden by a jury. I just love the hypocrisy

It's so cute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #66)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:01 PM

69. Been there. Done that.

It's not what you type: It's who you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:54 PM

67. As has been stated higher in the thread, PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #67)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:57 PM

68. Suckiest explanation so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:14 PM

70. He might have

 

But my question is, what happens if it's proven that he knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread