Posted on 11/14/2012 6:13:29 AM PST by pabianice
That is one theory I placed a lot of credence in. Even though the ruse or red herring of romance goes back to a period in time before 9/11/2012...
Offers? Is that what they’re calling force and blackmail these days?
Sorry, for the offense.
After I posted my comment to you, I made the decision that I will no longer make such statements here.
Yes, it is. My doubt was more to do with why the poster would add that to his story- it was not germane.
Right
That would be better than Senate controlled by RATS!!!
I sure hope that you’re right.
I read, yesterday, that Petraeus said that he wasn’t going to testify because his replacement at the CIA is in possession of all of his documentation and reports from his fact finding trip. Which means that he doesn’t have the proof to back up his statements. He is really putting himself at risk if he testifies against the administration without the proof to back it up.
Will he testify under oath???
He will probably receive immunity from prosecution for his testimony which will preclude his taking the 5th on any issue.
He wasn’t under oath when he talked about the spontaneous eruption.
Question:
Since he is now a civilian, he has lost his Top Secret clearance...how can he testify about anything crucial without the Dems crucifying him for violating TS requirements?
Yep-— Highly relevant question. Have no answer.
He may have cover from Congress on criminal aspect and frankly not care about reputational aspect.
Which congress critter did DP convey “Do you want the official story or the truth” Someone mentioned it last night on FOX. But I’ve yet to find it on the net.
Rush is saying nothing new will come from Petraeus testimony....the WH has him by the balls, and nothing will change.....
All these hearings and a couple are closed. That is why McCain and company are calling for a Select Committee on this subject. I am really skeptical about the Senate setting up a Select committee! Dems gotta protect the Won dontcha know!
Meanwhile, In Brett prog yesterday there was a factoid I haven't seen mentioned anywhere (and contradicts many quotes from lawmakers).
Griffin reported that Adam Housely (sp?) said his sources disclosed that the "CIA annex was being used as a processing facility for detainees, despite the 2009 executive order...barring these black sites. Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake reported on Jan 28, 2009, when he worked for the Washington Times, that there was a loop hole in the executive order that enabled the CIA to hold prisoners for a few days for questioning---"a little-noticed exception that allows the spy agency to continue to operate temporary detention facilities abroad.""
I haven’t finished listening to them, but both McCain & Graham make a critical point. Not only will we not know what info is presented at these closed hearings (except for leaks), but each hearing will not know what was presented at the other hearings.
Called it “stove-piping.” Pointed out that if each hearing yields testimony blaming the other dept (CIA, DoD, State), no one will ever know.
If left to stand, that point alone ensures Benghazi will be buried.
Bill Kristol: "Gen Petraeus obviously thought, as Charles [Krauthammer] says this was going to go away, an unpleasant, an unfortunate and inappropriate interlude in his life, but he thought it would stay private. He was wrong about that. The WH asked him to leave....And he left.
"And the final point though. He may have been under pressure, as Charles says, to go along with the Administration line on Sept 14th about the video, which he knew was not true.
"Someone else told me that Gen Petraeus, on the Hill that day, Director Petraeus I should say, said privately to one of the members of Congress, [after being asked by him, What happened in Benghazi?], "Do you want the official line, or do you want the real truth?""
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.