Looks Like Holder Will Be Staying On

Ugh. After indication last week that the scandal plagued Attorney General might step down because he was “running out of gas”, comes news via The NY Post that Obama is holding on to Eric Holder as the nation’s top law-enforcement official:

The newly re-elected president asked his controversial attorney general to stay for the second term, and Holder has agreed despite enduring a firestorm of criticism from Republican lawmakers.

“I don’t know if everyone in the White House wants him [Holder] to stay, but the important guy does, and that’s all that matters,” said one person briefed on the matter.

Holder’s office declined to comment.

I mentioned, last week, that contrary to what you may hear from the regime’s media toadies, Holder has not been completely “cleared” and “exonerated” of wrongdoing in Fast and Furious.

In the wake of the IG report, Andrew Cohen, a liberal legal analyst and Atlantic columnist said it best,  “avoiding perjury or obstruction of justice, or being ignorant of your department’s biggest scandal, is no cause for relief. … There’s no dispute that he should have known.”

It doesn’t exactly instill confidence that his entire defense was “I’m a completely incompetent boob.” Yet that is the defense that supposedly “cleared” him of wrongdoing in  Fast and Furious, the bloody gun running fiasco that has already caused hundreds of murders in Mexico and along the US border  and will continue to do so for many years to come. And that is looking at it in the most charitable light.

Awesome. Four more years of that guy as our top law enforcement official..

Charles Krauthammer: White House ‘Held Affair Over Petraeus’s Head’ – “The Sword Was Lowered on Election Day”

While many pundits on the right have been whispering that blackmail may have been involved in the Petraeus scandal,  Charles Krauthammer, Tuesday on Fox News’s Special Report didn’t mince words, saying what everyone with working brain cells is thinking:  “Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line to quote Bill, everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed. I mean, can you imagine what it’s like to be on that pressure and to think it didn’t distort or at least in some way unconsciously influence his testimony? That’s hard to believe,” he said.

Transcript via Newsbusters:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.

And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?

Watch the video at Newsbusters.
Fox News is also reporting that Obama will be holding a press conference tomorrow afternoon to answer questions about Benghazi,  and oooooh-wee! He’ll be taking questions from the media, so woot! woot! We’re really gonna get to the bottom of this, now, eh?
Of course it will be a pathetic farce – the White House feels like they have all their ducks in a row, now, I’m guessing. They’ve come up with a story, (and it doesn’t even have to be a plausible story – it can be absurd on its face) – and they know their media  lapdogs will lap it up. (See Your Guide To Understanding the Media for the Next Four Years for further edification.)
I don’t think I have the stomach to watch it.

Here is POLITICO’s cheat sheet of questions that the president is likely to face:

1. Do you believe the FBI should have told you and Congress sooner about the investigation that led Gen. Petraeus to resign?

They’re so in the tank for this boob their first question already assumes he had no knowledge and allows him to play the victim. So to summarize: Don’t expect a single tough question. Besides, he’d never answer them anyway. Here’s a very simple question for the esteemed press corps: Why did you repeatedly lie that the terror attack in Benghazi was a protest against a video nobody ever saw and why is the maker of that clip in prison?
Jammie, Jammie, Jammie….do you not know that all the smart journalists already know the answer to that question? He called the attack “an act of terror” in the Rose garden on Sept. 12 –  ask CNN’s Candy Crowley – she knows. Duh. All references to the video were due to the best intelligence the White House had at the time *cough* Petraeus* *cough* and the matter is under investigation. They’ll let us know the result in a year or so when the investigation is completed.
The video maker is in prison because he’s a shady Middle Eastern operator who needs to be kept quiet he committed parole violations.
Here are some questions Obama can answer today. What did he and Panetta and Biden talk about during that 5:00 meeting at the White House, and what did Obama do for the rest of the evening? Did he happen to make it to the Situation Room to watch the attack on TV as it was streamed live? Or did he just go straight to bed after dinner so he could be ready for his big trip to Las Vegas the next day?

While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton boozes it up in Australia and the Pentagon grapples with more floozy eruptions, outraged military families are still waiting for answers about the forgotten 9/14 attack on Camp Bastion.

Muckrakers and distraction engineers are having a front-page field day with the so-called “sex scandal.” But for surviving relatives and colleagues of heroic Marine Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Sgt. Bradley Atwell, it’s the national security scandal at Afghanistan’s Camp Bastion that deserves headline coverage.

There’s been a virtual blackout of the alarming story in the national press. As I reported last month, the meticulously coordinated siege by 15 Taliban infiltrators — dressed in American combat fatigues and armed with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons — resulted not only in two deaths, but also in the most devastating loss of U.S. airpower since Vietnam. Six Harrier jets were destroyed; three refueling stations were wiped out; six hangars were damaged.

The attack came exactly six months after a failed suicide attack targeting Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and three days after the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi.

Via Fox News: Petraeus agrees to testify on Libya before congressional committees

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify about the Libya terror attack before the House and Senate intelligence committees, Fox News has learned.Petraeus had originally been scheduled to testify this Thursday on the burgeoning controversy over the deadly Sept. 11 attack. That appearance was scuttled, though, after the director abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.
No word yet on when he’ll be able to appear to testify before Congress.
Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!

Hillary Won’t Be Testifying at Thursday’s Benghazi Hearing – She’s Going To Australia For Some Wine Tasting

On November 9, the Herald Sun reported that the visit was expected to be confirmed by White House officials “as early as today.” Meaning November 9 – the day after the House Foreign Affairs Committee,  the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee scheduled hearings to be held this Thursday. The House Foreign Affairs Committee had invited Secretary Clinton to testify at their open hearing, Thursday.

No, but this sounds like it will be a very important trip…

Hillary Wine-tasting pic via JWF

The visit is expected to be confirmed by White House officials as early as today.


Few details of Ms Clinton’s visit on Wednesday and Thursday have been revealed, but it is understood she will visit close friends, one whom is connected to the Carnegie Mellon University. It also believed that:

THE 150-strong entourage is likely to visit Penfolds’ Magill Estate for either a wine tasting session or private function.
THE entourage has booked more than 100 rooms over several floors at the Intercontinental Hotel on North Tce.
HEAVY traffic restrictions are likely from late Wednesday ahead of her anticipated arrival that night.
HER entourage will leave Adelaide on Friday morning.

She (and her 150 strong entourage!?) will in Australia Wednesday and Thursday.

It almost looks like her trip abroad it was timed to avoid the hearings.

Hey, it worked for Kevin O’Reilly, right?

Meanwhile it appears that the House  Foreign Affairs Committee may issue subpoenas to force Clinton to testify  if she continues to make herself unavailable.
Appearing on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren,” Ros-Lehtinen expressed frustration at what she described as the State Department’s “utter silence” on events leading up to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate and Clinton’s apparent decision not to have anyone testify in her place this week on Capitol Hill.
Clinton is traveling in Australia and elsewhere abroad this week, a trip that was scheduled but that Ros-Lehtinen suggested is not important.
“We think that it is only fitting and fair . . . to bring up the secretary of state because this was a consulate. This was part of the State Department operations,” the Florida Republican said, adding that she wants to hear from Clinton in public “about what happened so that we can prevent another Benghazi from taking place again.”
“We want answers, and we’re going to see if we can cooperate with the State Department and have Hillary Clinton finally show up, perhaps by the end of this month, in an open public hearing,” the Congresswoman added. “We’re fine with the classified briefing, but that is no substitute for the answers that the public demands.”

Asked about the possible subpoena if an agreement on testimony can’t be worked out with Clinton, Ros-Lehtinen said, “Absolutely.”

That makes the Sec of State and the former Director of the CIA who won’t be able to testify at Thursday’s hearings, and may have to be subpoenaed. Are any other Regime Cabinet members gonna be sent out of the country or be too embroiled in personal scandals to testify?
(Update: Geo reminds me – Leon Panetta. Of course. He’s joining Hilary in Australia.)
Clinton Arrived in Australia Tuesday for  “the annual Australia-United States Ministerial meetings set to focus on defence and foreign policies.”
Clinton will be joined later by U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta for the visit.

And she will continue on to Singapore.

Via The Dept of State website:

Secretary Clinton will travel to Singapore on November 16-17 to meet with senior government officials, including Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Foreign Minister Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam, on a wide range of issues.

On November 17, Secretary Clinton will travel to Bangkok, Thailand. She will join President Obama and his delegation on November 18 for meetings with Prime Minister Yingluck and other senior Thai officials to underscore our strong alliance and discuss shared priorities and regional issues in advance of the ASEAN East Asia Summit.

Secretary Clinton will accompany President Obama to Burma on November 19, and join his meetings with Burmese President Thein Sein and Chair of the National League for Democracy and Member of Parliament Aung San Suu Kyi.

Secretary Clinton will also accompany President Obama on his travel to Phnom Penh, Cambodia November 19-20 to attend the U.S.-ASEAN Leaders Meeting and the East Asia Summit.

No doubt she’ll be too busy to testify until after the holidays, and everyone will have forgotten about Benghazi by then. We’ll already be on to the next blood curdling scandal.


CNS NEWS: Levin To House GOP: ‘Subpoena Petraeus…Subpoena Hillary Clinton’:

“Right now everybody’s chasing down emails.  Oh, really?  What did her emails say?  What did her emails say of the other woman?  Oh, what about her?  And I’m sitting here thinking, ‘Do you realize Barack Obama still has not told us where he was, what he did or didn’t do when our consulate was attacked in Benghazi?’ – and we’re chasing down these women and their emails.”

“I think this is a complete set up and a complete cover up and these women and Petraeus are just pawns in the whole process,” Levin said.

Levin then offered advice to the Republicans in the House of Representatives:

“Now let me give a little advice to the geniuses in the House of Representatives; that would be you Republicans:  Go ahead and subpoena Petraeus – he has to show up.

“He can plead the fifth if he wants.  But subpoena him.  There’s not a court in the land that won’t uphold it.  And subpoena Hillary Clinton; because she has no rational basis, no constitutional argument not to appear.  She has to appear.  Now issue your damn subpoenas and get on with it.

Commander of US-NATO Troops in Afghanistan Ensnared in Petraeus Sex Scandal Probe (Video)

Obama can’t believe his luck. The full fledged national security disaster that is BenghaziGate has turned into a seedy tabloid sex scandal that the ObamaMedia is now tripping over each other to cover.

The Washington Post   reported:

PERTH, Australia — The FBI probe into the sex scandal that prompted CIA Director David Petraeus to resign has expanded to ensnare Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon announced early Tuesday.

According to a senior U.S. defense official, the FBI has uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of documents — most of them e-mails — that contain “potentially inappropriate” communication between Allen and Jill Kelley, the 37-year-old Tampa woman whose report of harassment by a person who turned out to be Petraeus’s mistress ultimately led to Petraeus’s downfall. (Video fixed)

video via ABC News

20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails to his paramour? This man is a prolific writer. How did he find time to run the war in Afghanistan?

 Frank Gaffney at the Washington Times examined the boring old national security implications of the Petraeus scandal.

We have learned that Gen. Petraeus‘ lover, Paula Broadwell, had classified information on her personal computer. She and her paramour both deny that he was its source. It is unclear whether either was polygraphed, or whether the FBIis simply taking their word for it. Either way, we need to know if the security breach (whatever its provenance) is going to be pursued. Or will it be dropped, with potentially far-reaching implications for how others treat state secrets?

  • Citing multiple intelligence sources who had served in Benghazi, the aforementioned Fox News report indicates, moreover, that Ms. Broadwell appears to have actually disclosed such secrets. It seems she revealed in a speech at the University of Denver in October that the so-called CIA “annex” in Benghazi was being used to detain and interrogate jihadists from around the region. The Agency vehemently denies this account, noting that the CIA has not had the authority to engage in such activities since President Obama expressly eliminated it in an executive order upon taking office in January 2009. Still, if the Broadwell revelation — which, it seems reasonable to surmise, came from her intimate access to a man who would have known the truth – is any indication, Team Obama would have had plenty of reason to worry about the damage Gen. Petraeus could do to its hopes for reelection.
  • Another activity in which the CIA’s Benghazi station was reportedly engaged posed risk to Mr. Obama’s reelection. The station was covertly helping an international effort to arm the so-called “Syrian opposition” by shipping weapons recovered from “liberated” Qaddafi-era caches. If, as the New York Times has reported, the bulk of the armaments being sent thither by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are winding up in the hands of the most radical Islamist elements, some supplied by us are likely reaching al Qaeda operatives.

Thus, we potentially have a full-scale national security disaster on our hands. Imagine, for example, even a few of Qaddafi’s thousands of surface-to-air missiles being used, not to shoot down Syrian air force jets and helicopters, but U.S. airliners, here or abroad. Who will be held accountable if that happens?

Presumably, CIA Director Petraeus would have been intimately familiar with the details of what his operatives in Benghazi were up to. That would certainly have been true after their station was murderously attacked and (as Ms. Broadwell suggested to her audience in Denver) he swiftly established that it was a terrorist attack. He would, therefore, have to have knowingly dissembled when, shortly thereafter in the course of hastily organized briefings on Capitol Hill, he parroted the Obama administration meme that this act of jihad was actually just a spontaneous response to a provocative video.

In light of the general’s reputation for integrity, could he have been coerced by a White House determined to deflect and deceive at least until election day, in a position to destroy his career?

Sound implausible? Well, is it any more implausible than this: Ronald Kessler reports at Newsmax.com that, “FBI agents investigating CIA Director David Petraeus’s affair were shocked when told by Bureau officials that, despite the national security implications, no action would be taken on their findings until after the presidential election.”

Oh, and just when you think things couldn’t possibly get worse, there’s this….

The Blaze reports: Susan Rice Now a Definite Favorite for Secretary of State:

Last week, when President Obama won reelection, we predicted that despite her highly odd behavior in the aftermath of the attacks in Benghazi, UN Ambassador Susan Rice would almost certainly still be a favorite to replace retiring Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now several reports – as aggregated by the National Journal – are confirming precisely that.

First, there is a New York Times report, which states:

Ms. Rice, an outspoken, ambitious diplomat with close ties to Mr. Obama, has emerged as the clear favorite. But she would face stiff resistance on Capitol Hill, where she has come under withering criticism from Republicans for asserting that the deadly attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, might have been a spontaneous protest rather than a terrorist attack.

Then, there is this passage from a Washington Post story:

Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.[…]

So they’re actually considering the lying liar Susan Rice for Sec of State, and the deplorable, and treasonous Lurch for Sec of Defense. I’m sure you’ll agree we’re in the best of hands.


John Nolte, Big Journalism:Your Guide To Understanding the Media for the Next Four Years:

Last week, as the Petraeus sex scandal broke, The Mighty Charles Krauthammer said something that got a lot of play in New Media. He seemed certain that “sex” and the fact that Barack Obama was safely reelected would be the tipping point that drove the media to cover what’s become known as “BenghaziGate.” Normally, if I disagree with Krauthamme,r I just assume I’m the one who’s wrong. But I knew that wouldn’t be the case here. And it hasn’t been.

The media did exactly what I predicted it would. The sex scandal has been compartmentalized by the media and even used as a distraction to avoid the Obama Administration’s dreadful handling of the situation in Libya — from security failures to cover-up. Moreover, we’re now seeing The Narrative move even further away from the White House and Libya, as the scandal is used to tarnish Petraeus’ achievements in Iraq (a war the Left will always hate and still hopes we lose) and the military as a whole.


Put simply, we have to get our minds around the fact that the media’s over-arching goal is and always has been “History.” For the media to affirm everything about itself, Obama must be remembered as One Of History’s Great Presidents. Everything the media’s done since Obama climbed onto the national stage has been geared towards exactly that.

Case in point via Weasel Zippers: Carney: “It Is Simply A Fact” White House Didn’t Learn Of Months-Long Petraeus Investigation Until Day After Election…

O-tay then. Carney they didn’t know so they didn’t know. Case closed.