When do we start calling this a 'cover-up' by the Obama White House?

[bigtree]

64. yeah, I think that's a reasonable view

. . . although, I keep coming back to Brennan's CIA's conduct and the President's reluctance, so far, to rebuke him; expressing 'full confidence' in his internal investigation; and basically giving him an out for what I see as outrageous and illegal conduct that came directly from the directors office.''

Knowledge of that and an effort to conceal such criminal behavior would rise to what most consider a 'cover-up.' Knowledge of the behavior as it occurred would be worse.

There's also a question that I've been asking about whether there is some objectionable or improper behavior or actions by the Obama administration which is contained in the findings or is hinted at in the report which the President might be endeavoring to keep out of the public eye.

We know of reports (who knows if they're credible) that the administration is still engaged in renditions - and also reports that there are tortures which have been committed on our nation's behalf in other nations without the restrictions the U.S. places on that conduct. That would be something I could see the President working to conceal.

As I wrote above in response to 'the Senate already knows,' there may be legal restrictions on revealing information from the investigation independently - or Senators might not be willing to jump ahead of the President's final decision on what to reveal in the summary that he has ultimate approval on. I wouldn't be surprised to find some senators willing to reveal more at that point if they're not satisfied with what the WH allows the public to see.