Attorney General Eric Holder was one of a select few people aware of the FBI probe that involved former CIA Director David Petraeus months ago.
The Obama ally, however, would have the American public believe that he never breathed a word of the case to the president or anyone else in the White House. And after the Fast and Furious debacle, it begs the question why?
Why would Holder not want the president to have a heads up about the potentially hot campaign topic that might have surfaced?
If Holder didn't tell Obama because he thought he was somehow protecting him, one has to ask what was he protecting him from?
Deniability is one likely explanation, especially considering the fallout from the botched Fast and Furious operation. With Obama being able to deny he knew anything, he was also able to abscond from any semblance of responsibility if something went awry for--or against--David Petraeus.
If the attorney general didn't tell the commander in chief because he wasn't sure it was going to lead to anything, then it just shows he hasn't gotten any better at judging circumstances than he did in the Fast and Furious investigation. And that could mean he needs to be the one to resign.
Fox News reports that John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN can't believe Holder would sit on this kind of information, making it appear it was a purposefully effort to suppress.
That could only mean that Holder was trying to forestall the inevitable: David Petraeus being charged criminally or resigning on his own, or both.
This should have been a conversation between the Justice Department and the White House if ever one should have occurred according to Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, because Petraeus "was the director of the CIA, not Fish & Wildlife. The implications are massive."
The Sydney Morning Herald reports on Tuesday that the agent involved in blowing the whistle on Petraeus suspected a cover-up in order to protect Pres. Obama. And that's why he sought Congress' help in blowing a lid on the investigation's findings.
Should Eric Holder be found negligent in his duties for not reporting the investigation to Obama? Or will the FBI investigation eventually reveal that he did, but the president didn't want anyone to know it?
(Photo Credit: Pete Souza)
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 10
Mainstream Media, so far that I have seen, are only reiterating what the conservative news venues are saying.
There has not been one source, that I have seen so far, that substantiates where this information, about Holder, IS COMING FROM.
However, even though I am a Democrat, and if it is true, Holder SHOULD have told the President.
But why didn't CANTOR have one of his aides leak the report to the media? He knew about it, at the end of October.
I have felt, for a few days now, that the FBI, the CIA, and others WERE protecting the President--via PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.
There does seem to be the DISTINCT possibility that this scandal was being WITHHELD from the Public to increase Obama's chances for reelection.
It is a remarkable story.
And I am quite pleased that the story did not come out--EVEN THOUGH THE PUBLIC MIGHT HAVE HAD THE RIGHT TO KNOW, BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETED.
What is bothering me is the stories coming out saying they knew about the affair when they made him Chief Spook. Makes me believe this is all Benghazi fallout.
Anyway, really good comment, Brett. Great article, Hillary.
I believe that the Undecideds, in the Electorate, might have been swayed, at once by Debate I; and then, back again, by Hurricane Sandy.
So I do believe that it is conceivable that the fallout from the Patraeus scandal could have had a detrimental effect on the potential of an Obama victory.
But if it would have been enough to bring down the Obama administration, is problematic.
Possible, but not necessarily likely, as you say.
I am more concerned about the four Americans who were murdered. I really do not give a rats turd who is sleeping with whom. None of my business or anyone's business. However, not protecting our American citizens when they were begging for help does concern me and should concern every living creature on the right and on the left. No exceptions no excuses for this President.
Even if Obama did know about Petraeus' infidelity, he would in no way be responsible for it, under any circumstance.
The point is, regardless of you and I being pleased about the election results, it seems to me that it's possible (not definite) that it stretches credulity that the investigation was over almost simultaneously, with the election results.
Someone being told, at 5PM, in the White House on Election Day?
Quite a coincidence, don't you think?
It seems to me that the FBI, and maybe the CIA, might have been protecting the President: to wit, PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.
Although if Kantor knew, at the end of October, it's hard to believe that he didn't have one of his aides drop a dime, anonymously on the Press.
No?
Not a big fan of getting mixed up in speculation, but it would be understandable if Obama sat on the info until after the election. The moonbats had enough irrelevant straw men to foam at the mouth over without unleashing this bombshell, which ultimately had nothing to do with Obama and would have only been a distraction. And I have a hard time believing that someone that had an affair would suddenly be a huge risk to national security. It's not as if he was leaking information to North Korea.