Skip to comments.Why canít/wonít Petraeus testify?
Posted on 11/09/2012 4:55:44 PM PST by chessplayer
Duane, what puzzles me is why Petraeus resignation disqualifies him from testifying at all. Im not the only one puzzled, either. NROs Katrina Trinko cant figure it out:
Perhaps there is some protocol Im unaware of, but I dont see why resigning should affect whether Petraeus testifies or not. He was in charge of the CIA when the Benghazi attack occurred, and the CIA has been under plenty of fire for how the attack was handled.
Neither can John Hinderaker:
This gets curiouser: Petraeus was scheduled to testify before a Congressional committee on Benghazi next week, but in view of his resignation his testimony has been canceled. That makes no sense to me. Why should his resignation have anything to do with testifying about events that occurred while he was the director of the agency?
The only explanation I can conceive is that Petraeus doesnt really have any information to tell Congress that relates to his own personal actions relating to the Benghazi attack.
After this disclosure, is the broad well?
1,2,3 this thread will be shut down for asking the same question.
Well now this makes sense.
He may testify but they had to destroy him first. It’s obvious.
Where is he now"
Cong Peter King said they need Petraeus testimony or their Benghazi investigation will be incomplete.
One way or another, I think he will testify.
Good question. So what if he had an affair. The Benghazzi affair takes precedence. Congress should subpoena him.
It didn't destroy Clinton back in 98. Remember the 1998 MSM/Clinton meme of "sex doesn't matter".
Because he cares about his family?
For his own sake, I hope he avoids canoes at all costs in the next few weeks.
I may be wrong about this, but I believe he can no longer be compelled to testify before a Congressional committee if he’s no longer a Federal appointee. I don’t think Congress can just hand a subpoena to Joe Q. Citizen on the street and make him go to Washington to testify in a Congressional hearing.
Do you really think a 4 Star married 47 years was screwing some journalist? Really? He resigned in protest over Benghazi and zero won’t allow it.
Wire him up. An eighty vote bell ringer circuit strategically placed ought to do the trick.
I don’t know, but as a private citizen he can simply plead the Fifth Amendment, I believe.
He won’t testify. He will be somewhere extremely remote “reconnecting” with his family.
Either he wants to live or he has loved ones.
Congress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution’s grant to Congress of all legislative powers (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.
Congress can issue a subpena to Petraeus.
Maybe so...but unless I'm mistaken he can also be granted partial,or *full*,immunity.
Yes, they certainly can subpoena any citizen to testify before Congress. They can also cite people for contempt of Congress if they lie or refuse to answer questions. Remember the “Hollywood Ten”?
They had no problems doing so with sports stars and the Twisted Sister freak.
That looks really bad for Obama and Pretreaus.
Pretreaus spilling the beans, though, it looks like Pretreaus is telling the truth, especially since the affair is old news, and especially after the MSM has told us "sex doesn't matter".(i.e Clinton/Lewinsky)
That,s right null and void.
There is some $hit going on in this country.
And it’s some pretty bad stuff.
He can only plead the Fifth if testifying will incriminate him
What about Roger Clemens (sp)?
As a retired officer drawing pay, he can be recalled to active service 'til the day he dies, and even in a retired status, remains subject to the UCMJ.
I wonder if he ever court martialed a subordinate for adultery....
Per this piece from the Weekly Standard- OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS have told Congress that Petraeus will not testify- BECAUSE he resigned. WTH is going ON here?
Congressional Republicans were furious with Petraeus for what they described to THE WEEKLY STANDARD as misleading testimony he gave to the House Intelligence Committee on September 14. In that session, Petraeus pointed to a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video as a primary reason for the attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, despite an abundance intelligence pointing to a preplanned terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex there. Other members of Congress were particularly interested in questioning Petraeus about why crucial details about those attacks were left out of talking points the CIA prepared for lawmakers and executive branch officials. Among those details: the existence of a communications intercept between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks. The level of frustration with the CIA and Petraeus had led several top Republican lawmakers to consider calling for his resignation in late October.
Obama administration officials have told reporters that Petraeuss resignation means he will not testify before congressional oversight committees next week, as planned. This will not sit well with Republicans, who believe Petraeus is in a unique position to shed light on the intelligence on Benghazi before the attack, the decision-making during the attack and the misleading stories told after it.
Do you really think a 4 Star married 47 years was screwing some journalist? Really? He resigned in protest over Benghazi and zero wont allow it.
He’s done some crazy stuff to make me completely distrust him, but he’s got the RATS totally trusting him.. well, until now.
the way I take it is this: The bastards were trying to blackmail him to testify a certain way and he called their bluff.
Too many unusual circumstances surrounding Benghazi. Each new one makes this smell worse. I have a very suspicious feeling about this.
Laura Ingraham, who’s almost as as bad as O’Reilly, was just talking to somebody on O’Reilly and wondered if Petraeus can be court-martialed, since “he’s a 4 star general”.
Ground control to Ms. Laura. Petraeus retired August 2011.
He is now a private citizen and citizens are not court-martialed. He might end up in jail for dereliction of duty as the Director of the CIA. He no longer has to testify. And he made the call. What’s he hiding?
I'd say this was a "planned" affair....and not by Petreaus.
How long was it going on??
Is she a Democrat?? Does she know Fluke??
Lotsa dots here.
“The only explanation I can conceive is that Petraeus doesnt really have any information to tell Congress that relates to his own personal actions relating to the Benghazi attack.”
Then that should be his testimony.
And Congress has the power to cite him for contempt like a judge presiding over a grand jury hearing.
Furthermore, Pretreaus is likely still listed on active duty , and any case, it is possible for any flag officer can be subjected to Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Well, now this makes sense.
BO wanted to shut Petraeus up. Wonder how much BO paid the “biographer” to screw Petraeus.
Getting rid of the witnesses is the Chicago way, after all. BO won’t have anything to fear from a Bengazi investigation.
Mark my words. The investigation is over and the POS in the White House comes out smelling like a rose!!
That reminds me of the moveie/book "Word of Honor" by Nelson DeMille
Both are great if you ever get a chance to watch/read.
“Bitch set me up.”
I’m beginning to seriously doubt the affair angle.
Because he cares about his family?
Could be. There is no doubt in my mind that obama would “disappear” his family. It would be the Chicago Way. I’m wondering why obama sicced the FBI on him in the first place.
I was wondering when someone would mention Roger or even Mark McGwire or Conseco or Giambi.... ;-)
Obama is doing a great job of clearing the trail to plausible deniability. What a slimey bastard,
Duh. THe Benghazi thing is most likely huge and these gexperts are CYAing like there’s no tomorrow, and there isn’t for them in any case.
The spin now is that Hillary was always planning on resigning after 4 years.
Anyone saying that must provide proof.
It is not true.
Roger Clemens comes to mind
“the way I take it is this: The bastards were trying to blackmail him to testify a certain way and he called their bluff.”
That is my belief, too.
BTW, didn’t zero tell someone recently not to call his bluff? HA HA What a tool.
Why, then, do CEOs of major corporations show up to testify before Congress when bidden?
“Why can’t Petraeus testify?”
Because he was holding Admiral Barnstead’s Preakness bet....
I don't think either House of Congress has tried to directly hold anyone in contempt since the 1930s. The modern practice is for the House (or Senate) to ask the US Attorney for Washington DC to go to US District Court in DC and ask a Judge to hold the person in contempt.
Since both the US Attorney, and the Federal Marshals, work for Attorney General Holder, I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.
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.