Obama Aides: He Didn't Know Extent of NSA Surveillance

Obama Aides: He Didn't Know Extent of NSA Surveillance "I think it was disturbing to most people, and I think he found it disturbing.”

President Obama doesn’t merely claim ignorance of the IRS’ targeting of politically conservative groups or the Department of Justice’s targeting of journalists: according to The New York Times, Obama was also ignorant of the extent of NSA surveillance. According to the Times, “aides said Mr. Obama was surprised to learn after leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, just how far the surveillance had gone.” David Plouffe, Obama’s advisor, said, “Things seem to have grown at the NSA. I think it was disturbing to most people, and I think he found it disturbing.”

President Obama has repeatedly claimed ignorance on scandals plaguing his administration.

In October, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said Obama didn’t now about failures of Healthcare.gov. In May, Obama said he knew nothing about the IRS scandal: “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.” That same month, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama had no clue that the DOJ was targeting the Associated Press: “Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP.”

In November 2012, Obama said he knew nothing about the scandal surrounding then-CIA Director David Petraeus. Carney denied in June 2012 that Obama knew anything about the Fast and Furious scandal: “[E]veryone knows the President did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media.”

That’s because he was focused like a laser on not knowing anything about the IRS’ surveillance and harassment of Conservative groups, in between moments when he could no longer ignore not knowing about the Beghazi terror attacks, which he had to intersperse with not knowing anything about how bad George Bush left the economy when he, Barack the Ignorant, took office, except for those times when he, Barack, didn’t appreciate the magnitude of the accidental untruths he told about being able to keep your doctor. There are so many things 0bama doesn’t know anything about, but DAMN he knows about how to reform the healthcare system and how your taxes would be better spent feeding and pretending to educate ferals in our fine lib-run cities.

Plausible deniability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960s to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by the lower ranks because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved or at least willfully ignorant of said actions. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act in order to insulate themselves and shift blame on the agents who carried out the acts, confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one’s (future) actions or knowledge. In some organizations, legal doctrines such as command responsibility exist to hold major parties responsible for the actions of subordinates involved in heinous acts and nullify any legal protection that their denial of involvement would carry.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a “powerful player” or intelligence agency to “pass the buck” and avoid “blowback” by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay “clean” and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.

More generally, “plausible deniability” can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds as a means of non-invasive torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.

Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can “plausibly deny” the allegation even though it may be true.

HE doesn’t know what HE doesn’t know.
WE have no idea of what HE doesn’t know or when HE didn’t know it.

Let a White Hispanic send a thug to the promised land and BO sticks his nose in it.
Let a White Cop have a rift with a Black Professor and BO sticks his nose in it.
Want a prediction on the Super Bowl, Final Four, World Series and BO is Johnny-On-The-Spot (a construction outhouse) to give an opinion.

Anything when it comes to HIS JOB and he, like Hitlery before him, doesn’t recall.

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.