U.S. lawmaker suggests Obama told of Petraeus affair earlier
(Reuters) - The head of the House Intelligence Committee suggested on Sunday that President Barack Obama might have known about former CIA Director David Petraeus' extra-marital affair before the November election, and said Attorney General Eric Holder should address this question soon before Congress.
U.S. Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican, said Holder's statement that the Justice Department had not informed the president before the election implied that Holder might have told Obama privately.
He noted that the FBI investigation of the communications between Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell arose due to concern over a counter-intelligence threat. Both Petraeus and Broadwell have said they did not share any security secrets, and investigators have said they have found no security breach.
"It probably should have been brought forward earlier as a national security threat," Rogers said.
"I'm not sure that the president was not told before Election Day. The attorney general said that the Department of Justice did not notify the president, but we don't know if the attorney general...(notified him)," Rogers said.
He said Holder should come before the intelligence committees to discuss it. "We could resolve this very quickly with a conversation in the intelligence spaces if he did have that conversation with the president."
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein disagreed, saying Holder had explained to the intelligence committees there was no notification while the investigation was under way. Justice and the FBI took this approach, she said, "so there is an ability to move ahead without any political weighing-in on any side."
The retired four star general admitted to the affair and resigned his post at the CIA three days after Obama was elected to a second term on November 6.
Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham called the FBI investigation of the affair "the oddest story in the world" and doubted Obama knew before the election. "I could see how he would not know," he said.
We're probably not going to get the whole scoop. Aspects of national security and breaches there of are normally not a topic for open discussion, so we won't really get that far into it. (Honestly, I don't want to hear the tawdry details of this affair. I don't want to hear what confidential information was compromised. Regardless of party affiliation, I want the authorities to find out what happened and get to the bottom it. Hold responsible parties responsible and move the hell on....)
From a formal Justice Department official during Regan admin he claimed that Obama must have known because it is common for the FBI to tell the President that any senior official or anyone high up in the government is under investigation. Source Mark Levin.
[....James M. Garland, who was Holder’s deputy chief of staff from 2008 to 2010, said the long-standing rule is that criminal investigations are not shared outside the FBI or Justice Department -- and even kept from the civil side of the Justice Department.
“We want our law enforcement agencies to apply the laws dispassionately and without any political interference,” said Garland, a partner at Covington & Burling. “That is why there is this bright line prohibiting the sharing of criminal investigative information with the White House unless it is a threat to national security.”
Garland said the rules also protect the privacy and reputations of people who are under investigation. The prohibition covers disclosures to administration officials and members of Congress in order to avoid leaks that could compromise an ongoing investigation or give rise to accusations of political influence, according to former Justice Department lawyers.
The discovery that the director of the CIA was involved in an extramarital affair complicated the issue because the Justice Department’s rules collided with a potential threat to national security.
Although Holder said the investigation did not indicate there was a national security threat, officials have suggested that the possibility of Petraeus’s affair exposing him to blackmail forced the Justice Department to inform the executive branch.
“At that point,” said Matthew Miller, a former director of the Justice Department’s public affairs office, “it was a policy decision as to whether or not Petraeus was fit to remain in office.”.]
Mark Levin - now he's anything but a non-partisan voice.
Really, the justice department should not share details of investigations which don't involve national security issues with any other branch of government. Do they? I really don't know and, be assured, neither does Mark Levin know. Maybe that's the way it worked in the Reagan administration - maybe that was common practice then
This is all ear say...I watched meet the press on Sunday and this guy Mike Rogers is just throwing speculation around. I can't wait til the hearings are over so the repubs can find something else to focus on....
Who knows. We'll never know the truth. Too much is at stake and everyone wants to protect their own interest unless you are the designated person to take the hit. I really believe that. I don't know how you get voted in as the person who is going to fall for something but this whole thing sounds like the story plot to a great novel. Sad it is real life.
No, it doesn't matter what anyone says, there has just got to be a conspiracy or a cover up of some kind going on. Don't we all know, the people will have it no other way?
Lots of people throwing speculation around is right. McCain is right up there at the top.Altho lately he is doing some serious backpeddling I see. It doesn't matter what the truth is, there will be a cover up in certain peoples eyes no matter what. And the spin goes on! This should be the name of this new soap.It should include the laying around with this one and the flirting with that one, and the chick fight included and of course it all has got to have something to do with 9/11. Yep, dont know why people just cannot see it! Embarrassing is right!
Oh, it matters what people say teko. I'm trying to listen and I'm not a huge conspiracy person. But something is ringing a warning bell for me about about this situation and it does bring to mind all sorts of seedy things that could have happened. I'm not trying to condemn any person at all. I actually think situations like this weaken our government and just make people we count on look bad. For that reason, I'm really done saying I 'want' to know. I give up. No one is above what power seems to do to people and often is not pretty. Do I think something shady happened? Yes. But who cares. I don't trust our government all that much anyway and haven't for a good deal of time. This is nothing new.
I thought mikes post shed some light on that question vance, did you not read it or, did you simply disregard it altogether because it is not something you want to hear?
See, this is what I mean. Pre conceived notions prevail, no matter what! Over and over and over again. It just appears until that gotcha moment arrives and you hear what it is you want to hear, nothing else matters. At least that is what I see.
Maybe Teko. Guilty until proven innocent. But hey, everyone is guilty of this depending on where they stand in support of a particular person. I mean, we had Romney rigging voting machines a couple of weeks ago.
Oh, and my opinion on this has changed. Had someone just said "we screwed up, sorry"---- I would have moved on and not thought a second thing of it. Sadly, mistakes do happen. But that is too much to ask of the power people to be accountable.
but I also realize that we will never know the truth. So best to just move on anyway.
Hopefully Romney will fade into the fog from which he came, he jumped on this bandwagon as well if I remember and for all the apologizing for the 47 percent comment, came back to use the same type of tactics for why he lost the election. Another prize that one is!
Unless what you hear is what you want to hear, then no, you will probably never hear the truth. I agree.
Yes indeed - someone should stand up but alas..........they never do - do they?
Bush was honest about SOME of the mistakes made. The WMD, that was a confusing issue. Technically, they WERE there, in factories, but because they weren't "assembled", the gov't couldn't call them that. Many miltary men/women video taped what they found in the factories. ALL of the components present, just needed put together. Sorry, but IMO, that's enough of a WMD for me to require action.
Also, I know we all do it, but I can't see how bringing Bush into this discussion accomplishes anything, other than deflection? Unlike some people (generally speaking, not aimed at anyone), we don't claim that a leader was blameless. I could agree with you about a LOT of things I think Bush did wrong...but we're NOT talking about him. We're discussing Obama abnd the Benghazi nightmare.
"If Obama's mouth is open, you can bet he lying about something..."
There is no use trying to have an intelligent discussion with anyone who would say something as biased and juvenile as that. We are not 15 years old !
Even though I thought very little of Bush and even less of Cheney, I never would accuse them of lying every time they open their mouth.
Is there any possibility of having a discourse with you based on respect ?
True but it's disrespectful in general,
Not anyone even the worst people we can think of, lie every time they open their mouths, and that includes a chronic liar or two, I've known.
I really have gotten tired of it, I get tired of people pointing fingers and being divisive as if all Republicans or all Democrats are cut from the same cloth.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I do think people are a bit more complicated than just fitting under a label.
Maybe it's just people like me, who tore up that old box~lol.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.