Cantor - What's his motive?

[LeftInTX]

I can't seem to wrap my head around Eric Cantor and Petraeus.

Why did he speak out publicly about the FBI's investigation?

He didn't have to say anything publicly, right?

I assume his motive is self serving.

But what is he trying to accomplish?

Is Cantor trying to make it look like the WH was covering this up until after the election?

Anyone have ideas?

Thanks

[RagAss]

1. IMO..he got caught in the middle, got scared and notified the head of the FBI.

[elleng]

5. But did he go public with it?

[rablrouzer]

2. Nor original to me, but

Response to a post I made.

Cantor said he didn't want to disrupt the election.

Not bloody likely as he would have done anything to win.

[msongs]

3. he covered it up to save obama's re-election lol nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. His motive for what?

Cantor didn't speak out about the investigation until it was already public knowledge.

He made a phone call, found out there was an investigation, was most likely told it was ongoing, so keep your mouth shut, and that was it.

[jberryhill]

7. That was my question - motive for what?

[WCGreen]

6. Of course they are...

[LeftInTX]

8. Thanks for your replies

[jillan]

9. There is something here. I don't know what it is yet, but I don't trust that slimeball Cantor for a

second.

If he had a chance to bring the President down before the election, he would have.

Now excuse me while I dust off my tinfoil hat.

[Prism]

10. I think they're about to dip their toes in the Impeachment waters

If they could get President Obama out with an election, well, that would have been ideal. Now that he is cemented into office another four years, alternative methods of defeating him must be explored.

They are already muttering about it on some of the more popular conservative blogs.

This thing is going to get interesting.

[DCKit]

11. But. still, not a chance in hell.

Cantor knew, but saved it for impeachment? Not gonna fly.

[HipChick]

12. Impeachment based on what?

FBI broke protocol, and never informed the WH..heads need to roll at FBI/CIA first

[Prism]

13. You have to see the narrative they're trying to construct

Which is, essentially, the President knew before the election but left a compromised CIA director and risked national security out of political expediency. This is what's now starting to seep into their talking points. Cantor, knowing, has to get that out there immediately so he doesn't become part of the wide-ranging net they're going to cast proving a cover-up.

I doubt this will have legs - at least not any that will trouble the President. And I really don't think the country is in any kind of mood for the Republicans' shit.

But, at the moment, we're not dealing with rational actors. They're flailing and desperate.

[LeftInTX]

14. That is what I'm beginning to think..

[DCKit]

15. I agree with "flailing and desperate.'

But Cantor knew first, and didn't release it. The timeline and chain of knowledge has been established. Cantor is fucked.

When Cantor gets held to account publicly, I'm looking forward to steak and lobster, the S.O. hates his guts.

[Prism]

18. From your lips . . .

So tired of the Cantors of this world.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. Held accountable for what?

I keep seeing all the posts about Cantor being screwed, and there has to be something I've not seen, because based on what I've read, I'm not getting what Cantor did that was wrong.

[DCKit]

23. I'm just saying he's in no position to complain about it.

And that's got to be killing him.

[Renew Deal]

17. There might be an impeachment.... Of Cantor, Reichart, and Issa

[TorchTheWitch]

20. Impeach him for WHAT?

It wasn't Obama cheating on his wife, it was the Repub's own golden boy. They already tried impeaching Clinton for cheating on his wife, but that certainly didn't fly, and they had to pin it on his lying about it under oath anyway. What, they're going to try to impeach Obama for not holding onto the Repub golden boy's dick so it would stay in his pants????

[CitizenLeft]

16. I heard Peter King (ack) say that he had presidential hopes for Petraeus

...so Republicans claim him as their own, for some reason, though I don't remember reading or hearing anything from Petraeus himself that would plant him in the right's corner. If I heard correctly, Holly Petraeus has a position in Obama's administration right now (just looked her up - the Daily Beast describes her in a headline as "a military scion, a financial warrior allied with Elizabeth Warren" who works for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).

But I think that's somehow at the bottom of all this faux outrage bullshit from the right that's aimed at the White House, and all the cosseting of his reputation. They want to somehow create a scandal with the prez as punishing Petraeus or shutting him up about Benghazi or somesuch bullshit.

So if Eric Cantor kept it quiet, I'm thinking he was being protective of Petraeus. None of it makes sense yet.

[sigmasix]

21. enough noise for electoral confusion

All of these comments and questions concerning this whole thing have failed to account for an inescapable fact of modern RW ideology and RW media; the truth has never been high on thier agenda when it comes to energizing the teabagger base- F*x "news" and the other freeper sources are only interested in increasing the volume of teabagger hate and truthless accusations, not the veracity of their arguments. Teabaggers have an irresistable need to hide their ignorance about the true state of the world with F*X"News" approved, anti-intellectual American "maverick" know-how and hate-fueled conspiracies narrated with racist rhetoric. I fear the only way to recapture our country's greatness is through the use of forced mental health screenings for all F*X "News" viewers.
Why do so many teabaggers hate America?

[OmahaBlueDog]

22. My main thought is that if there were something damaging to the President here, he'd have used it

Cantor heard from the FBI agent 7 days prior to the election. We don't know if he had additional, earlier knowledge, but he knew what was coming. If there were something in the Petraeus scandal he could have used against the President's re-election, he'd have done so.

I suppose it's possible for a variety of reasons that both sides agreed to hold off on announcing this until after the election. One possible reason: acting on a CIA replacement would have been a high priority, and congress might have had to convene in the middle of an election season -- they don't want to do that (either party). Now confirming a replacement can be high on the task list of the lame duck session.