« | »

Holder Defends ‘Telling Obama’ After Elections

From his unquestioning fans at the Washington Post:

Holder defends keeping Petraeus inquiry from White House until after election

By Sari Horwitz, Carol D. Leonnig and Greg Miller | November 15, 2012

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Thursday defended the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation that led David H. Petraeus to resign as CIA director, saying that the department was right to keep the inquiry secret from the White House until after last week’s presidential election…

“What we did was conduct the investigation in the way we normally conduct a criminal investigation,” Holder said in a news conference in New Orleans.

Why was this a criminal investigation? What was the crime? The emails contained no threats. The only reason this should have been investigated would have been on the grounds of national security. And Holder later claims that was never an issue.

He said the inquiry was handled “in an impartial way. We follow the facts. We do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations.” …

Unless it suits their political purposes.

But if this is true it is outrageous. If an ongoing investigation revealed a plot for another 9/11 would the FBI refuse to tell anyone else? Isn’t that the famous ‘Gorelick Wall’ that was supposed to been torn down after the first 9/11?

Lawmakers from both parties have faulted the FBI for not notifying Congress that a criminal probe had turned up compromising material on the CIA director as well as potentially inappropriate communications between a Tampa socialite at the center of the case and Gen. John R. Allen, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan.

Really? We haven’t heard any complaints from Democrats.

Holder fired back Thursday, saying the Justice Department “made the determination as we were going through that there was not a threat to national security.” Because of that conclusion, he said, there was no reason to advise officials outside the department before the investigation was complete.

Then why were they investigating an email that in effect said: ‘keep away from my man you hussy’?

The FBI notified the executive branch with a call to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. on the evening of Election Day, Nov. 6. Holder said the call was made then because the bureau had “conducted a critical interview the Friday before. When we got to that point, we thought it appropriate to notify the president.” …

There is only one problem with Holder’s argument here. If there was no reason to tell Obama about this before the elections, there was even less reason to tell him afterwards, after it was determined that there was no crime and no national security threat.

That is to say, if you were going to tell the President at any time, you should have told him during the several months when the head of the CIA could have been involved in a crime, or when he was subject to blackmail. Not afterwards, after you had determined that there was no danger.

In fact, this is such an illogical argument a child of five should see through it. But, of course, it is enough to fool our media watchdogs.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, November 16th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Holder Defends ‘Telling Obama’ After Elections”

  1. Right of the People

    I was going to say Holder was taking a bullet for Obama but I didn’t want to get anyone’s hopes up.

    As an aside, after four years my spellchecker still doesn’t recognize “Obama” just like I don’t.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »