Skip to comments.Since Petraeus was not required to testify under oath, does that mean Hillary won't either?
Posted on 11/16/2012 12:46:18 PM PST by BenLurkin
Washington (CNN) -- Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill on Friday that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.
U.S. Rep. Peter King of New York, who spoke to reporters after the closed hearing, which lasted an hour and 20 minutes.
The account Petraeus gave was different from the description the Obama administration gave on September 14, King said.
Then, the attack was described as "spontaneous," the result of a protest against an anti-Muslim film that got out of control outside the compound.
Petraeus was not under oath, King said.
Like that means anything to Democrats. Especially a Clinton.
Doesn’t matter. She won’t remember anyway. Her answers will all be along the lines of, “I don’t recall...My mind is jello.”
Here’s your sign!
When will they roll out Larry Flynt the Hustler publisher
(that honors women), to start threatening anyone who asks questions?
I wear mine since the election.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
Oath means nothing to hillary. Remember “I’m sorry, I don’t recall”
When Hilly testifies, it is always the same: “ I DON’T RECALL - - - - .”
Can anyone help me out with this. If they have subpoena power, why don’t they at least bother to make the testimony they gather as truthful as possible by putting it under oath?
Like we should believe anything any of these people say?
He wasn't under oath on Sept 14 either when he lied through his broadwell kissing lips. So then can we expect another amended evolving statement.
Since it’s a felony to lie to Congress, I think all testimony to Congress is consider “under oath.”
But Congress can lie to us all they want.
If Hillary is forced to go under oath, the only thing we will get is, “I don’t recall.”