326. The Smear Playbook: Beyond Swalwell. Familiar names: Mueller, Clapper, Holder.

Introduction

0:00Hi, everybody. Sheryl Ackeson here. Welcome to another edition of the Sheryl Ackeson podcast.

0:11Today, the smear playbook beyond Swalwell and some familiar names, Muller, Clapper, and Holder.

0:21Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money. Because behind every headline is a bottom line. Whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion-dollar swings, there's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com.

Eric Swalwell Controversy

0:52All the controversy that's happening with Eric Swalwell, the Democrat from California, recently dropped out of the gubernatorial race, and resigned from Congress. Well, the timing of it all reminds me of numerous operations that I've reported on in my books, Stonewall, The Smear, Slanted, and Follow the Science. As I've described over the years, one way to detect a true organized smear operation is not whether the allegations against a target are true, often they are,

1:25but whether their release, the leaks, the spin, and the timing are engineered by somebody to accomplish a separate hidden goal. Are the unseen hands of propagandists or special interests at work? Is the media being used? This is what fascinates me, and the takedown of CIA chief David Petraeus comes to mind. As you'll hear in just a moment when I read an excerpt from my New York Times bestseller,

1:55Stonewalled, the Obama FBI kept secret news about Petraeus' alleged affair with a journalist until Petraeus came to be at odds with the administration on the cover-up of the Islamic terrorist nature of the Benghazi-Libya attacks. We're going back a ways. Some of you will vaguely remember some of this. Maybe some of you have never heard it.

Benghazi Cover-Up

2:17But I'm also going to read you a memo that I wrote at CBS News while I was investigating the Benghazi story for my Emmy-nominated coverage. The memo and the book excerpt, I think, demonstrate what Petraeus did to anger many in Obama's inner circle, perhaps Obama himself, by going off the reservation on the Benghazi cover story and what happened to him, I think, as a result. Before I read an excerpt about this from my book, Stonewalled, let me just set the stage

2:49a little bit. Right before the 2012 re-election of President Obama, there were these Islamic extremist terrorist attacks on Americans in Benghazi-Libya. And as I exposed at CBS News, there was a huge cover-up that went on for months with the Obama administration covering up the fact that they had been warned this was going to happen, that the people on site, including the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. ambassador to

3:20Benghazi-Libya, he had begged for increased security, that everybody seemed to know this was coming. But Washington, D.C., the State Department, and Hillary Clinton did not get them what they asked for, put them in grave danger, as it turns out, ignored warnings, very explicit warnings. There were threats that said exactly that this would happen in order after other attacks had already happened and come true after they were threatened. So during the attacks themselves, we were able to learn through documents and through sourcing,

3:56there was a revision in real time of what was going on before the public was told. As the attacks unfolded, and we later learned, I think I was first to report this, they went on for hours and hours with rescue attempts possible, but not tried. But there were cables and communications that showed the U.S. State Department and others clearly knew this was an Islamic extremist terrorist attack. And yet they engineered to portray this right before the election as some kind of unpredictable,

4:27spontaneous protest, partly because President Obama had run on the platform that he had sent Islamic extremist terrorism on the run, and that this was really not a problem we had to worry about all that much anymore. This attack disproved that whole thing. And if it came out before the election, that this is exactly what had happened, well, a lot of people worried that wouldn't be good for President Obama's re-election attempt. Again, this was just weeks before the election occurred.

4:58We didn't know all of this at the time. The news came out little by little. And some of you may know, as outlined in some of my books and writings and reporting, that CBS News, some inside CBS News, also engineered to cover up what we knew and what we learned and what President Obama had actually admitted to us in a 60 Minutes interview that never made air. But that's another story. So I'm telling you all this to set up the excerpt from the book Stonewalled when I wrote

5:30about what happened to the CIA chief David Petraeus during this time period when they were, the Obama administration was trying to figure out what to do and what to tell the public. They were writing the talking points, as they call them, on Benghazi, and the CIA's Petraeus wasn't going along. That's when something really bad happened to him.

Petraeus Scandal

5:52So now I'm reading from my book.

5:56Meanwhile, another controversy is waiting to boil over within the Obama administration, a sex scandal involving the CIA's Petraeus. The timing is intriguing. Only after the Benghazi attacks, as Petraeus's loyalty to the administration falls into question, does everything turn sour for the spy chief. In the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Petraeus first draws ire from some administration colleagues for not reading from the Carney Obama Clinton Rice book of fiction.

6:29While they're pushing the spontaneous protest narrative, he's disclosing full information on the suspected al-Qaeda links in a classified briefing with House Intelligence Committee members, according to those present. Then, the talking points that his agency approved for public dissemination on September 14th, this was just a couple of days after the attack, the talking points that his agency approved said that the CIA provided advance warnings on

7:01September 10th that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt could come under attack and that Benghazi was in a precarious state. Hillary's State Department sees the inclusion of that damning information in the CIA's original proposed talking points as what was referred to as a knee-jerk, cover-your-ass moment on Petraeus's part. One official later told me, we thought, why are you guys, Petraeus, the CIA, throwing us, the State Department, under the bus? They made it seem like the State Department was given a

7:34warning they ignored, but no specific warning was given. So, this is me now summarizing or clarifying a little bit. Petraeus has approved talking points to go out to the public that would say the CIA had warned this was going to happen in Benghazi, Libya, and the State Department has really ticked off about that. They don't want that news out there. They're denying that's the case. Okay, back to the book. Emails indicate that on September 15th, 2012, again three days after the

8:07attack, a CIA representative sent Petraeus the final version of the talking points that had been revised through the deputies committee after, quote, state voiced strong concerns with the original text. Well, guess what? In this revised version, the CIA's references to terrorism, in other words, that terrorists had been involved, and references to early warnings had been removed. So, Petraeus expresses disapproval of the final version of the talking points, and he writes in these internal

8:43communications that he prefers these talking points not be used. Well, next, his deputy, Mike Morales, and the White House give the talking points the green light. Why is Petraeus' deputy allowed to override him? Is all of this the beginning of the end of Petraeus' career as CIA director? Let's look at a timeline that I constructed primarily using government accounts. In November of 2011,

9:14so way before the September 11th, 2012 terrorist attacks, Petraeus, who's married, allegedly begins an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. The following summer of 2012, again before the Benghazi attacks, the FBI discovers the affair, and FBI Director Robert Mueller is notified on a date that the government won't disclose. But Mueller knows about the affair. Also, at some point, the FBI actually interviews Petraeus and Broadwell, and then concludes that, well, national security hasn't

9:49been breached. And so, things just kind of go on as they are. I take this to mean, based on what I know now, that the FBI wanted Petraeus to know that they had something on him. Something that they said they weren't going to use, but they wanted him to know that they knew it. So, that's got to be hanging over his head. Another interesting thing that I think is informative, so much information leaks out from the FBI when they want it to leak out. The press is called, New York Times is called,

10:23Washington Post is called, information is leaked, and the media acts like they got a big exclusive, but it's really just them being used as tools of someone who wants information out for their own purposes. Well, this did not leak out. So, the FBI didn't want it out. They just wanted Petraeus to know that they knew. Well, in late summer, looking at a timeline that I later built, on a date that the government would not precisely reveal, but in late summer, before the Benghazi attacks,

10:55Attorney General Eric Holder is said to be notified of Petraeus' troubles. Now, supposedly, we're told the White House is kept in the dark about all of this. I don't find that very credible. I mean, apparently, we're to believe that Holder, the Attorney General, doesn't think President Obama needs to know that one of his top cabinet-level officials is under FBI investigation, not to mention part of a potential sex scandal. No one's going to start developing a strategy in the event that the scandal blows up before the election. We're to believe that not a soul is

11:29worried that President Obama might get hit with a surprise question about Petraeus on the campaign trail? Very odd. Well, then comes September 11th. Some Obama administration officials now become frustrated, if not downright angry, with Petraeus and his post-attack behavior. His deputy Morales, as I mentioned, is given authority over the talking point edits, and he sides with the State Department against Petraeus' desires, against his own boss. Then, in late October, as Petraeus' interagency

12:05relationships become increasingly strained over Benghazi, somebody in the FBI, some FBI agent, we're told, suddenly reaches out to Republicans in Congress to disclose Petraeus' dirty laundry. Isn't that odd that an Obama-FBI person would go to Republicans in Congress to tell on Petraeus? Well, that information, the leaks, eventually land at the office of Republican Majority Leader Eric

12:36Cantor. And about the same time, the week of October 29th, right before the election, the FBI decides to interview Petraeus and Broadwell a second time. Now, normally in Washington, D.C., this would be about the time the scandal goes viral. Republican leaders alerted to a sensitive issue that they could argue has national security implications. Well, that could be expected to at least be leaked to the press, especially with less than two weeks to go before the presidential election. But strangely

13:08enough, that doesn't happen. On October 31st, 2012, right before the election, in a move that seems to defy everything that defines Washington, the Chief of Staff for Congressman Cantor keeps publicly mum about the administration's burgeoning scandal. What do they do instead? They confidentially contact the FBI's Chief of Staff about the Petraeus rumors. So let me reiterate that. You have the lead

13:38Republican in the House going to the Obama-FBI Chief of Staff, talking about the Petraeus rumors, keeping it quiet from the press, but together talking about this right before the Obama election. Even with the news having reached the president's most ardent political opponents and with the election so close, we are told later that the entire White House was still somehow for some reason uninformed on this issue. So fast forward a week to November 6th, the day of the presidential

14:10election. Somebody at the Justice Department, we're told, has finally decided to tell Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, another familiar name, about Petraeus. Now again, we're supposed to believe this is the first that Clapper knew or learned about the Petraeus scandal many months after the FBI started investigating him. How good of a Chief Intelligence Officer are you if you supposedly don't know that the head of the CIA has been under investigation by your FBI for months and Republicans

14:43on the Hill know before you do? I don't believe that. In any event, Clapper calls Petraeus that day. This is November 6th, the day of the presidential election, and urges him to resign. This is a stark reversal of the FBI's pre-Benghazi determination that there was no harm in Petraeus staying on the job. What changed? They said there had been no national security breach some months earlier. Now, all of a sudden, he's off the reservation on Benghazi and they're all demanding his resignation.

15:14On Wednesday, November 7th, the day after the election, according to the government's account, that's finally when somebody told the White House about all of the above. And when is the president himself finally looped in? Well, they say not until Thursday, November 8th. The president then accepts Petraeus' resignation Friday, November 9th. You can believe what you will, but if President Obama was indeed kept out of the loop regarding one of his most important appointees, it adds to the

15:47perception created or invented previously, like during the Fast and Furious scandal when the president and his staff claimed they had no idea that a federal agency working under them conducted a cross-border weapons operation that helped arm killer cartels in a foreign country. It adds to the questionable image evoked immediately after the Benghazi attacks when we're told the president supposedly directed his staff to do everything they could to rescue or help the American victims under attack for hours and

16:21hours, yet we're also told he didn't speak to Libyan officials or personally keep in close touch with the defense secretary. They would never release the photos of what President Obama was doing that night or where he was or any details. It just starts to sound like they're keeping President Obama in a perpetual position of plausible deniability. It builds upon the theme of another scandal when President Obama claimed he didn't know that his own spy agency was secretly monitoring

16:52friendly world leaders. Well, I suppose the timing of Petraeus's sudden departure could be purely coincidental. Maybe it had nothing to do with his supposed disloyalty to the administration after Benghazi. But one thing is for certain, his inelegant and abrupt exit from the CIA ended the interagency resentment that he had sparked in the aftermath of Benghazi. After a short break, I'm going to read

Internal Email

17:19you what I wrote in an internal email at CBS News on Friday, May 17, 2013, the months after Benghazi when I was still assigned to heavily investigate what was going on and was uncovering a lot of news. I compared the various versions of the talking points that were circulated internally within the Obama administration. I carefully contrasted the different versions and all of the revisions so that other people at CBS that were

17:50also reporting on this story at some level would understand what I had unearthed. So that's after a short break.

Sponsor Message

17:58Adobe Firefly is the all-in-one creative studio with AI-powered image and video editing for today's creative process. Built for creators of every kind, Firefly helps you generate, edit, and experiment fast. Because the asks aren't getting smaller, the budgets aren't getting bigger, and the timelines, oh yeah, still tight. With all the best creative AI models in one place, Firefly brings your ideas to life. Unlock a better way to make with Adobe Firefly.

18:31On Friday, May 17, 2013, as I was breaking news on the Benghazi cover-up and the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, I had just gotten information from quite a few members of Congress who had been allowed to review in a limited basis some internal emails they wanted to see. This is another trick that's been going on for the last couple of decades in Congress. When members of Congress want to see something that a federal agency has, and they have every right to see it, there's all this crazy negotiation that goes

19:07on, and then the terms are very strict. Instead of just giving the documents over, the administration, if it's unfriendly to who's asking for the documents, will make all of these stipulations. They'll say, you can only look at these documents if you go into a room between certain hours, and our minders get to watch you, and you can't take notes, and just all of these crazy rules. And you know what? Everybody puts up with it for some reason, so that's just what happens. So in the memo that I'm sending around internally at CBS, I note that the emails that I'm going to be

19:42referring to in the memo were provided by the Obama administration to certain congressional committees for limited review. The committees were not permitted to copy the emails, so members made handwritten notes. Therefore, parts of the quoted emails that I'm talking about may be paraphrased. But there was a flurry of approximately 100 interagency government emails on September 14th and September 15th. Remember, the attacks happened the 11th of September going into the 12th. So there

20:16were all of these behind-the-scenes emails regarding the content of so-called talking points to release to the public regarding the terrorist attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others in Benghazi, Libya. The email list they were going to be talking about included officials from the White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and others who were all reviewing the talking points before they were going to be released to the public. An early set of talking points was ready

20:47for interagency review at 11.15 a.m. on Friday, September 14th. A dozen or more emails requested a few word changes. What's significant to note is that before revisions that were made at a deputy's meeting, there were numerous mentions that there had been attacks at Benghazi and prior warnings. So on Friday, September 14th, 2012, the 11.15 in the morning talking points version said,

21:18we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack. Very clear. But by 4.42 p.m. that afternoon, the talking points version was different. They changed attacks in Benghazi to demonstrations in Benghazi. Remember, the Obama administration was scheming to make the terrorist attacks instead appear as though they were spontaneous demonstrations that ran amok that

21:50could not have been predicted. But some other very sensitive things were added, later to be pulled out a revised. But added was, on September 10th, we, meaning Obama administration, State Department, so on, we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the embassy in Cairo and that jihadists were threatening to break into the embassy. Well, this news that a warning had been given was later removed. That was a sensitive thing because there had been violent demonstrations

22:26at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt, again, on the eve of the September 11th terrorist attack anniversary, something that could have been, should have been, and actually was predicted, but ignored. So this was a warning sign in advance of the attacks of Benghazi that the Obama administration later did not want people to think they had gotten a heads up or received a warning or should have taken note. Also added to this talking points version, would be later removed, the agency, meaning CIA,

23:02has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British embassy's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals have previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks. Again, this news of advance warning by the CIA of a threat

23:34was later removed. Another change in this version, though, they did already remove reference to the attackers having ties to al-Qaeda, and they changed the word attack again to violent demonstrations. See, the idea of demonstrations out of control, for whatever reason, was much more palatable to the Obama administration than admitting there had been an Islamic extremist terrorist attack. Now, as we go on and the talking points continue to be revised, you're going to hear more familiar names.

24:07So, two hours later, John Brennan, then Deputy National Security Advisor, but became the head of the CIA, asked for removal of the, quote, the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libya society. Then, about a half hour later, Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesman, expressed the most sweeping concerns. She wrote, quote, I have serious concerns about all parts highlighted below in arming members of Congress with information

24:43to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation. This is Victoria Nuland going on with her political concerns. She says, why do we want the Hill to be fingering al-Qaeda-linked answer al-Sharia when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have investigative results? And the penultimate point is a paragraph talking point about all previous warnings provided by the CIA about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda, which could be abused by members of Congress to fault the State Department for not

25:17paying attention. So, why would we want to see that either? So, Nuland is explaining, raising the concern that right before the election, if they admit what they knew or thought they knew or suspected, it would arm their political enemies in Congress and in the public with information that would not be good for them. At 8.59 p.m., a short time later, maybe hour and a half, a facilitator of the email threads answers Nuland's concerns about prejudicing the investigation by saying,

25:51the FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple of minor suggestions. Nonetheless, the group removes the paragraph referring to Ansar al-Sharia from the next version. So, the 8.59 p.m. talking points version, they softened, we do know that Islamic extremists participated to, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. And they removed this passage, quote, initial press

26:25reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam according to an open source study. All that was taken out. So, subsequent emails, now we're talking a half hour later,

26:55the State Department spokesman, Nuland, responds, quote, these don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building leadership. They are consulting with NSS, which means National Security Staff. A minute later, Jake Sullivan, another familiar name, he was then Secretary of State Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, later became National Security Advisor for Vice President Biden. He tells the group, I spoke with Tommy Vidor. Tommy Vidor was then the spokesman for the White House National Security

27:29Council. We'll work through this in the morning. So, at 9.32, Jake Sullivan messages Nuland, talked to Tommy, as in Tommy Vidor, we can make edits. Then two minutes later, 9.34, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, brother of CBS News President David Rhodes. Ben Rhodes writes about requiring a federal agency deputies meeting that's been called

28:02the next morning to discuss the talking points. Ben Rhodes writes, quote, we don't want to undermine the investigation. We want to address every department's equities, including the State Department. So, we'll deal with this at the deputies meeting. Next, the CIA's Legislative Affairs Representative loops in then-CIA Chief David Petraeus, notifying him of what's called, quote, major coordination problems. This email goes on to say, state has major concerns. The Bureau, the FBI,

28:36cleared the points, but Ben Rhodes said they will be reviewed in the deputies meeting. The next morning, Saturday, September 15th, approximately 8 a.m., an Obama administration deputies meeting commences with interagency representatives discussing the talking points. So, more revisions. At 9.45 in the morning, they remove this quote, On September 10th, the CIA notified the embassy in Cairo of social media reports calling for a

29:07demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the embassy. They also removed this quote, quote, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. That's out. They also removed, the wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contributed to the lethality of the attacks. Also removed, this quote, the CIA has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda and Benghazi in

29:39eastern Libya. Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out that the individuals have previously surveilled U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks. That's out too. An hour and a half later, more revisions. They remove Islamic from the reference to Islamic extremists. Now it just says extremists. In an email,

30:11the representative for the CIA sends CIA Director Petraeus the final version of the talking points writing, quote, we worked through the deputies committee this morning and they're sending these out for final approval. State Department voice strong concerns with the original text. What does Petraeus do? Well, Petraeus answers that he does not like the talking points and he would, quote, just assume they not use them. He goes on to say this is not what Representative Ruppersberger asked for. Ruppersberger

30:43was the lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and had asked for the talking points. Petraeus says we couldn't even mention the Cairo warning, but it's their call. Meantime, a U.N. official informs the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, in an email, quote, the first draft of the talking points apparently seemed unsuitable based on the deputies meeting because they implied the CIA warned about specific attacks. At the deputies meeting,

31:14Mike Morrell, Deputy Director of the CIA, noted the points would be edited and he would be happy to work with State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan and Obama National Security Advisor Rhodes. So this U.N. official email writing to the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, goes on and says, William McDonough, who was then Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama, on Rhodes' behalf, deferred to

31:45Sullivan. Jake, meaning Jake Sullivan, says the email, would work with the intelligence community to finalize the points that could be shared with the House Intelligence Committee. This U.N. official says, I spoke with Jake immediately after the deputies meeting and noted you, Ambassador Rice, are doing the Sunday shows and needed to be aware of the final posture that these points took. He committed to ensure we would be updated in advance of the Sunday shows. Susan Rice was later pilloried because she did appear

32:19on the Sunday shows. They kind of put her out there, kind of seemed to hang her out there to dry in a way because she maybe knew the least among some of these people who were in the loop and yet they let her make the public appearances. She shared incorrect information and was later criticized for that. I don't know. If you didn't follow some of this controversy back then with the Benghazi attacks and the cover-ups, so much to it. Maybe this is too much minutia for you now, but I thought

32:50that it might be interesting to some people who listen to these podcasts. And it all goes back to the FBI, the Obama administration having dirt on CIA Director David Petraeus that they didn't take action on until he clearly became a thorn in their side on a very important issue, after which time his scandal became public and he lost his job. Back to Eric Swalwell. We're not discussing the specifics of the

Swalwell Allegations

33:19allegations against him. Horrible allegations. That's not the topic of the podcast. I just want you to start thinking when you hear a scandal erupt and the media is on board and particularly when they're reporting on a liberal or progressive political figure criticizing him when fellow Democrats are quick to hang him out to dry. There's usually a lot more to it. It doesn't mean that the current discussion that's taking place about the allegations isn't a valid one, but don't you wonder

33:51why it all came out at the time that it did? Who helped organize it so it would all come out the right way to benefit whomever? And if you'll notice, it was not leaked to Fox News and the conservative press by conservative watchdogs or investigative types. This was leaked or given to liberal outlets, CNN, the San Francisco Chronicle. That's also a tell. That means to me that the people orchestrating or engineering the timing and so forth are coming from the liberal and progressive side

34:25and that this somehow serves their interests. That's how it works in Washington, D.C. and probably in a lot more cases than just the ones that we know about. Something to think about. I hope you enjoyed today's podcast now that you'll share it with your friends, subscribe to it, leave a great review, and if you're interested in sharing this in a way that's not just audio, I'll be posting a version of this on my Substack. Do your own research, make up your own mind, think for yourself.