In business or industry, a defense of "I didn't know what was happening" is considered as an indefensible position to espouse or hold.

Such a position points to a lacking on a leaders part to be aware of what those under their supervision are doing, or, that by association, the leader themselves fail to coral such behaviors or even condone it through lack of action on their part, which still puts the overarching blame for their subordinates actions in their court.

Meanwhile in government, all one needs to do is claim ignorance on an issue and expects to be absolved of any guilt.

Sure seems odd though that in each of the scandals that have rocked the Obozo admin (which there have been numerous examples of) all tend to be along the same lines of either poor choices having been made, attempts to then gloss over even the most glaring accounts of wrongdoing or outright flouting of government processes and laws and always in regard to furthering a leftist/progressive agenda idea or in some form or another to attack those who oppose their agenda.

Is connecting the relevant dots really all that hard? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, odds are, it damned well is one, even if the duck claims it's something else