It’s being claimed that Petraeus was told he had to resign. But the reasons make no sense. If Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction resulted in no resignation because they were just about - tee hee - consensual sex - then vulnerability to bribes (in order to hide an affair) has nothing to do with whether even the most powerful person in the world should resign from that powerful position, in order to protect the country. If Clinton was not forced to resign over his many affairs, then there is no way Petraeus should be forced to resign over his one. Especially since the threat of bribery could be removed just as easily by Petraeus coming clean publicly - moreso than with Clinton because Clinton had already committed crimes, and as long as there were potential criminal and civil lawsuits he was STILL vunlerable to bribery. Who could bribe Petraeus once he came clean publicly?
If what you’ve said is true, it would explain why the Obama regime is quick to say they are forcing Petraeus to resign - even though it stinks of an attempt to silence him from Congressional testimony regarding Benghazi.
I think Congress needs to probe how this resignation really happened and why, because it may reveal more about the Benghazi cover-up by this regime.
He may have told barry he’s not covering for him and barry was po’d and told him to get out along with threats I would imagine to give something to Petraeus to think about before he testifies. The affair is only a cover story like a poster said up thread.