This is something I can't help being reminded of any time there's "breaking news" about a political candidate and some taboo subject, even today. It seems at least naive to believe it never happens. I don't think it's too wrong to say that political candidates today either have very clean histories or "play nice" to some extent with these agencies.
But the support was extensive, and essentially a blank slate. And not just drone assassinations.
Edit: almost forgot - President Bush Sr. who used to be the Director of the CIA!
What does this mean? Feels like a typo but I can't figure out what the intended sentence was.
Essentially giving them whatever they wanted without asking any hard questions.
You can usually "sop up" == "soak up" something which leads to the common "sopping wet". You can also have a "sop" == "morsel".
"Sopping to" makes no sense in English.
Sources: google ngram, wiktionary, merriam-webster, concise oxford 1971
English definitions are descriptive instead of prescriptive. In this context, an English dictionary will describe how words are used in practice rather than prescribing how they should be used in theory. It stands to reason that English dictionaries are likely to have holes in their definitions, especially in cases where words are used in novel ways.
It helps to keep in mind that a person’s written or spoken English is correct if other English speakers -- some, not all -- correctly interpret the words as having the communicator’s intended meaning. This particular case is just someone verbing with a noun, which is a common practice in informal English.
I invite you to show any evidence that anyone else has ever used "sopping to" in this sense. That's exactly my point.
In addition the "verbing with a noun" is a red-herring. Sopping has meanings related to being small or wet/absorbent. So, you could verb that noun all you wanted and succeed only in confusing your audience. That's the best thing to keep in mind: are you communicating or obfuscating.