Posted on 06/06/2014 6:09:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Not sure how else to read this except as Feinstein accusing the White House of lying flat-out about its reasons for keeping Congress in the dark before the swap.
When asked whether there was a “credible threat” on Bergdahl’s life if word had gotten out, the California Democrat responded: “No, I don’t think there was a credible threat, but I don’t know. I have no information that there was.”
Feinstein’s comments, part of an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Political Capital with Al Hunt airing Friday evening, put her at odds with White House officials. At a briefing Wednesday, administration officials told lawmakers that they couldn’t give Congress advance notice on the Bergdahl deal because the Taliban vowed to kill him if any details about the prisoner exchange came out.
Just to make sure we’re all on the same page here, Feinstein’s no random member of Congress. She’s the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, routinely privy to all sorts of tightly held info that the White House shares with her and other committee members in the name of keeping the legislature apprised of threats. Nor is this the first time a member of the Intel Committee has claimed that information about Bergdahl was withheld from them. Saxby Chambliss says it was news to him to read in the New York Times that Bergdahl may (or may not) have left a note before he disappeared. That info wasn’t in his classified file.
Two possibilities here. One: It’s all true — the Taliban was set to kill Bergdahl if anyone blabbed — but the White House couldn’t share that info with Feinstein because she’s got a big mouth and would have spilled the beans. Any evidence to support that theory? Actually, yeah.
[A]t least in Feinstein’s case, the administration may have had a reason to keep her out of the loop. In March 2012 with Josh Rogin—then with Foreign Policy magazine—Feinstein accidentally acknowledged the negotiations, appearing to disclose classified information about a potential Bergdahl deal (Rogin also reported that the White House briefed eight senators, including Feinstein, on a potential deal in Jan. 2012).
They kept Congress in the dark about a potential Bergdahl exchange ever since. Even if it’s true that Feinstein was careless with information previously, though, that’s no defense to the White House breaking the law in refusing to notify Congress. They could have simply huddled with her, impressed upon her how high the stakes were — “you talk, he dies” — and then trusted her to be quiet. She’s known all sorts of things that she hasn’t disclosed. There’s no reason to think she couldn’t have been trusted to keep this a secret too, provided they gave her some reason to believe Bergdahl would be in jeopardy if she said anything. Why didn’t they? Or is this all a big lie and the Taliban never intended to kill him over a leak?
Second possibility: This is all a big lie and the Taliban never intended to kill him over a leak. You already know the arguments on this one if you read Ed’s post yesterday. It simply makes no sense to believe the Taliban would have cared much if anyone leaked. For one thing, the prospect of a Bergdahl/Taliban swap has been reported in papers like the NYT for at least two years. The Taliban themselves chattered about it to the AP last year. Plus, if you think about it, having the deal leak in advance would only enhance the propaganda victory for them. If news of an impending swap had broken a week earlier, American media had erupted over it, and then a battered Obama had bowed to the Taliban and done the deal anyway, it would have been a supreme humiliation. The only reason to think the Taliban was skittish about leaks was because they were afraid that news breaking in advance would cow Obama into scuttling the deal — but in that case, with Obama’s course of action uncertain, why would they have gone ahead and killed Bergdahl before O had made a final decision? It may be that they told the White House that they’d kill BB if Obama backed out at the last minute, but that’s not the same as saying they’d kill him if it leaked. And it’s certainly no justification for O to withhold notice from Congress.
Feinstein’s not the only big-name Democrat causing trouble for the administration about Bergdahl today, either. Remember that the next time Obama dismisses this as a phony scandal cooked up by Republican psycho-partisans. Exit question via Guy Benson: Remember when Jay Carney said that Bergdahl was a “prisoner,” not a “hostage”? How can that be true if the White House’s story is correct, that the Taliban were ready to murder him in captivity if the deal leaked? Legitimate armies don’t threaten to kill POWs; they hold them until the end of hostilities and then release them to the enemy. The word for a group that would slaughter a prisoner over a scuttled exchange is something different. It starts with a “T,” I believe.
Well, Feinstein did say she was told it was an oversight. Somebody lied at some point, obviously. Start the hearings.
Did she not receive the talking points memo?
Just another lie by the Obamanation.
DiFi is only upset because she, being the important Congresswoman (read: self-obsessed old blowhard) she is, wasn’t in the loop. Just like with the NSA. When they were reading our emails and tapping, our phones, she had no problem. But when they went into her committee’s computers, well then she went on the Senate floor and wet herself in outrage.
I am sure she is lying but I personally would have thanked the Taliban for killing one of their own.
as i said in a thread earlier this week, she is no-nonsense lady... she has been around a long time, and she is powerful... she has an ego, and he dared to keep her in the dark... it’s her, “oh hell no!” revelation... they all know Obama is incompetent at this point... most libs have come out the last 6-7 years supporting this clown... and some have stayed silent on the side lines... i think for Dianne F., enough is enough... and he stepped on her toes... where Pelosi and Reid are willing to say whatever necessary to show a united front with Obama, Dianne seems to go only so far... and i hope she sees that this time he went too far...
FeinSwine is a part of the oligarchy who ushered the bastard boy into the Lie House. Now she has been told to detach from his sneaker laces. Something is up ...
Because there is no evidence. Why in the world would these goat humpers off their five year old winning lottery ticket.
Darn, I just re-read it and thought she said the opposite of what she did.
Anyway I would not trust her no matter what.
These dimwit, self-centered DIMocRAT liars “own” the existence as Clown Prince nobama as pResident. They should never be forgiven. They must be crushed (election-wise, of course) and shoveled into the abyss of history. They are criminals. They will never change.
“If I’ve lost Feinstein, I’ve lost the American moonbats.”
Why would they have killed him if they were going to get five of their top guys back for him alive? This one had made less sense than any of the other excuses. Court Martial him, then impeach Obama.
Oh I see...
We never negotiate with terrorists, but in THIS case Obama had to negotiate because they threatened to kill him.
As opposed to all those other kidnappers in the past who only threatened to give them noogies.
FrankenFeinStein is PISSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DiFi is sort of awful now, but she actually wasn’t bad in SF a million years ago. And she’s always been pretty good on defense.
Yep, something is up. Obama falls on his sword for the party since he can no longer satisfy the progressives, President Biden names Ms Clinton as VP and the democrat controlled Senate confirms her nomination. This will happen before Nov 2014 in case the Senate is lost to the republicans. Excellent position for her to be elected as first woman President (some would vote for her just because she is part female just as some voted for Obama because he was part black). Just my humble opinion.
But it doesn’t matter at all. There is no point in saying uh oh.
This man does whatever he wants with zero consequence.
He may as well be god of earth.
What he has done is sickening beyond my ability to rationally describe with words.
Beck was stating tonight that the game was to put more attention on Bergdahl and draw attention away from the 5 Gitmo prisoners. Ok, fine. Imho, that doesn’t stick either. But if that IS the case then DiFrankensteen wags the dog very good.
Almost like an anti-Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.