Who Knew What When?

Eric Holder knew about Petraeus months ago?

By late summer, after the monitoring of Ms. Broadwell’s emails uncovered the link to Mr. Petraeus, prosecutors and agents alerted senior officials at FBI and the Justice Department, including Mr. Holder, U.S. officials say. The investigators never monitored Mr. Petraeus’s email accounts, the officials say.

So let’s get this straight. The Attorney General knew months ago that the head of the CIA was embroiled in an affair with national security implications, and he didn’t tell the president? Because that’s the official story from the administration — that the president (and Clapper) only found out last week. I dunno, I think if I had an AG who kept me in the dark for months on something like that, I’d ask for his resignation, along with Petraeus’s, last week. But that’s just me. And of course, were I president, he’d have already given me ample reasons to show him the door. On the other hand, if I’d been president, I’d have never appointed the corrupt racist hack in the first place.

9 thoughts on “Who Knew What When?

  1. Robin Goodfellow

    Eh, it’s a little bit sketchy but it’s not necessarily that big of a deal. It would be a lot more concerning if it were part of a pattern of questionable behavior.

  2. Jim

    an affair with national security implications

    They didn’t form a conclusion about the implications until this month.

    It sounds like Holder handled it by the book. You wouldn’t want an AG who passes juicy tidbits from ongoing FBI investigations to the president.

    1. Karl Hallowell

      They didn’t form a conclusion about the implications until this month.

      It sounds like Holder handled it by the book. You wouldn’t want an AG who passes juicy tidbits from ongoing FBI investigations to the president.

      Jim, there you go again, making weak, pathetic excuses. To your first point, they could have made a conclusion earlier than election day. It’s painfully clear that they were putting off an embarrassing firing till after the election.

      As to your second point, it’s Holder’s job to pass on juicy and relevant tidbits from ongoing FBI investigations of people who report directly to the President.

  3. Jim

    To your first point, they could have made a conclusion earlier than election day

    So FBI investigators should rush investigations to suit the political calendar? The real world isn’t a cop show, investigations (particularly sensitive ones) take time.

    it’s Holder’s job to pass on juicy and relevant tidbits

    To what end? Would Obama’s knowledge have made Petraeus any more effective in his job these last few months? In general you wouldn’t want to put a cloud of suspicion over an official until you knew what you were dealing with. It isn’t as if the FBI knew anything that presented an immediate threat. In the end they concluded that there never was a security or criminal issue, it was just a personnel issue.

  4. Karl Hallowell

    So FBI investigators should rush investigations to suit the political calendar? The real world isn’t a cop show, investigations (particularly sensitive ones) take time.

    Jim, they probably decided weeks to months ago to boot Patraeus.

    To what end? Would Obama’s knowledge have made Petraeus any more effective in his job these last few months? In general you wouldn’t want to put a cloud of suspicion over an official until you knew what you were dealing with. It isn’t as if the FBI knew anything that presented an immediate threat.

    Yes, Holder would be more effective because Obama would know what he needed to know.

    In the end they concluded that there never was a security or criminal issue, it was just a personnel issue.

    A personnel issue that happened to be a security issue.

    1. Jim

      Jim, they probably decided weeks to months ago to boot Patraeus.

      And you know his how?

      Yes, Holder would be more effective because Obama would know what he needed to know.

      Why did Obama need to know? Is there any evidence any of it affected Petreaus’ job performance?

      A personnel issue that happened to be a security issue.

      It was a potential security issue as blackmail fodder, and that possibility evaporated once the secret was out. But once the secret was out, it became a personnel issue; Petreaus didn’t think he could lead the agency having set such a poor example. It was Obama who asked Petreaus to reconsider his resignation.

      You guys are like the boy who cried wolf about Obama scandals. If anything juicy ever does happen no one will believe you.

      1. Karl Hallowell

        And you know his how?

        Because he got fired right after election day. Seriously, what’s more likely? That they finally get the information they need, right as the election ends? Or that they put off embarrassing news till the election is over? I consider the second more likely and henec, my statement to that effect.

        Why did Obama need to know? Is there any evidence any of it affected Petreaus’ job performance?

        Yes. Patraeus did have to leave, after all. That was a job performance issue right there.

        It was a potential security issue as blackmail fodder, and that possibility evaporated once the secret was out. But once the secret was out, it became a personnel issue; Petreaus didn’t think he could lead the agency having set such a poor example. It was Obama who asked Petreaus to reconsider his resignation.

        So you agree it was a security issue at the time. Second, Patraeus was right. If Obama really did make such an offer (maybe he’s as forgiving of Patraeus as he is of his cronies like Holder), then that would have shown poor judgment on the part of Obama. But let’s not get too hasty here. We have no evidence that Obama made an offer of this sort.

        You guys are like the boy who cried wolf about Obama scandals. If anything juicy ever does happen no one will believe you.

        Well, you wouldn’t believe us anyway. Anyone who can blissfully ignore Fast and Furious, has some mental filters in place.

        1. Karl Hallowell

          Speaking of Fast and Furious, it’s interesting to note that most, if not all of the guns smuggled in the operation (plus anything else which was smuggled with those guns) apparently went to the Sinaloa Cartel and nominal allies of the time, El Teo and La Familia. From the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we have:

          Manuel Celis-Acosta

          Leader of Fast and Furious Straw Purchasing Ring

          Manuel Celis-Acosta was the leader of the straw purchasing ring Operation Fast and Furious was targeting. As the leader of the ring, Celis-Acosta acquired over 2,000 firearms at a cost of over $1 million. Celis-Acosta provided at least some of these firearms to two associates of the Sinaloa Cartel. Celis-Acosta was arrested on April 2, 2010, and October 9, 2010. He was also detained in Lukeville, Arizona on May 29, 2010, crossing the border into Mexico with ammunition and an illegal alien. However, he was never charged on any of the three occasions and was released each time. Not until January 19, 2011, was Celis-Acosta finally indicted on 42 counts of conspiracy and straw purchasing.

          This guy was arrested or detained three times. Why didn’t they charge him with something?

  5. wodun

    It really isn’t surprising that they waited until after the election to force him to resign. There is a 99.999% chance that an administration from any party would have done the same.

    I don’t get the denials that Obama didn’t know. If the head of the CIA is under investigation by the FBI, the President better f’n know about it. I would be more upset if Obama didn’t know than he waited until after the election to force his resignation.

    Waiting until scant days after the election does make it look like the Obama administration had some strings tied to P4 and were pulling them. Did someone from the administration blackmail him to alter his testimony to conform to the administrations story about a video? It certainly contradicts what the CIA knew at the time of the attack.

    In the Great Game, it wouldn’t be uncommon for P4 to be set up like this. It removes a threat off the board for the party.

    I’m curious when having an affair became grounds for losing your job again? Unless of course Broadwell’s story about a secret CIA prison in Benghazi is true, then it looks pretty bad for Obama. But even then it is more about Obama being vindictive and spiteful then it is about the actual affair.

    I am curious to see how the media and leftists respond to black prisons and shadow wars.

Comments are closed.