Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why canít/wonít Petraeus testify?
Hotair ^

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. I’m not the only one puzzled, either. NRO’s Katrina Trinko can’t figure it out:

Perhaps there is some protocol I’m unaware of, but I don’t 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 doesn’t really have any information to tell Congress that relates to his own personal actions relating to the Benghazi attack.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: benghazi; benghazicoverup; benghazigate; benghazihearings; petraeus; petraeusaffair
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

1 posted on 11/09/2012 4:55:44 PM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; a fool in paradise; Slings and Arrows

After this disclosure, is the broad well?


2 posted on 11/09/2012 4:57:27 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

1,2,3 this thread will be shut down for asking the same question.


3 posted on 11/09/2012 4:57:37 PM PST by DallasBiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Well now this makes sense.


4 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:23 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

He may testify but they had to destroy him first. It’s obvious.


5 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:53 PM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Remember the guy whose video supposedly provoked the attacks on our middle-east embassies?

Where is he now"

'Nuff said.

6 posted on 11/09/2012 4:59:23 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
More people falling off the turnip truck.
7 posted on 11/09/2012 4:59:34 PM PST by throwback (The object of opening the mind, is as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Cong Peter King said they need Petraeus’ testimony or their Benghazi investigation will be incomplete.

One way or another, I think he will testify.


8 posted on 11/09/2012 4:59:42 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Good question. So what if he had an affair. The Benghazzi affair takes precedence. Congress should subpoena him.


9 posted on 11/09/2012 5:00:31 PM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The State does not look upon these types of questions favorably, comrade.

It was in the best interest of the peoples, you understand, tovarich.


10 posted on 11/09/2012 5:01:31 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
He may testify but they had to destroy him first. It’s obvious.

It didn't destroy Clinton back in 98. Remember the 1998 MSM/Clinton meme of "sex doesn't matter".

11 posted on 11/09/2012 5:01:40 PM PST by DallasBiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Because he cares about his family?


12 posted on 11/09/2012 5:02:03 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

For his own sake, I hope he avoids canoes at all costs in the next few weeks.


13 posted on 11/09/2012 5:02:50 PM PST by A. Patriot (Re-electing Obama is like the Titanic backing up to hit the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

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.


14 posted on 11/09/2012 5:02:53 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

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.


15 posted on 11/09/2012 5:03:01 PM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Wire him up. An eighty vote bell ringer circuit strategically placed ought to do the trick.


16 posted on 11/09/2012 5:04:08 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I don’t know, but as a private citizen he can simply plead the Fifth Amendment, I believe.


17 posted on 11/09/2012 5:04:08 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
I'm no Constitutional scholar but I would think that the House and Senate have the power to subpoena *any* US citizen.I suppose there may be cases where the hearings would have to be classified (closed to the press and public) however.I smell an end around by a loyal disciple of Saul Alinsky himself.
18 posted on 11/09/2012 5:04:35 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

He won’t testify. He will be somewhere extremely remote “reconnecting” with his family.


19 posted on 11/09/2012 5:04:58 PM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Either he wants to live or he has loved ones.


20 posted on 11/09/2012 5:05:53 PM PST by null and void (The One can steal an election, but no one can steal our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


21 posted on 11/09/2012 5:07:06 PM PST by mark3681
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
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.

Congress can issue a subpena to Petraeus.

22 posted on 11/09/2012 5:07:12 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I don’t know, but as a private citizen he can simply plead the Fifth Amendment, I believe.

Maybe so...but unless I'm mistaken he can also be granted partial,or *full*,immunity.

23 posted on 11/09/2012 5:07:49 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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”?


24 posted on 11/09/2012 5:08:14 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
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.

They had no problems doing so with sports stars and the Twisted Sister freak.

25 posted on 11/09/2012 5:09:12 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I don’t know, but as a private citizen he can simply plead the Fifth Amendment, I believe.

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)

26 posted on 11/09/2012 5:09:20 PM PST by DallasBiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: null and void

That,s right null and void.

There is some $hit going on in this country.

And it’s some pretty bad stuff.


27 posted on 11/09/2012 5:09:37 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

He can only plead the Fifth if testifying will incriminate him


28 posted on 11/09/2012 5:12:24 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

What about Roger Clemens (sp)?


29 posted on 11/09/2012 5:12:39 PM PST by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"...as a private citizen he can simply plead the Fifth Amendment, I believe."

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....

30 posted on 11/09/2012 5:12:55 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; maggief

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?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-s-sudden-resignation_662200.html

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 Petraeus’s 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.


31 posted on 11/09/2012 5:13:07 PM PST by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastoute

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.


I think Petraus has been gathering data.

He’s done some crazy stuff to make me completely distrust him, but he’s got the RATS totally trusting him.. well, until now.


32 posted on 11/09/2012 5:14:16 PM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

the way I take it is this: The bastards were trying to blackmail him to testify a certain way and he called their bluff.


33 posted on 11/09/2012 5:15:09 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Too many unusual circumstances surrounding Benghazi. Each new one makes this smell worse. I have a very suspicious feeling about this.


34 posted on 11/09/2012 5:16:21 PM PST by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

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?


35 posted on 11/09/2012 5:16:44 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Typical Chicago Thug style....Blackmail....

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.

36 posted on 11/09/2012 5:17:04 PM PST by Sacajaweau (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“The only explanation I can conceive is that Petraeus doesn’t 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.


37 posted on 11/09/2012 5:17:36 PM PST by Magic Fingers (Political correctness mutates in order to remain virulent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

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.


38 posted on 11/09/2012 5:18:57 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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!!


39 posted on 11/09/2012 5:19:00 PM PST by KosmicKitty (WARNING: Hormonally crazed woman ahead!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
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.

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.

40 posted on 11/09/2012 5:19:59 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

“Bitch set me up.”

I’m beginning to seriously doubt the affair angle.


41 posted on 11/09/2012 5:20:37 PM PST by maggief ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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.


42 posted on 11/09/2012 5:21:06 PM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PhiloBedo
What about Roger Clemens

I was wondering when someone would mention Roger or even Mark McGwire or Conseco or Giambi.... ;-)

43 posted on 11/09/2012 5:21:50 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Obama is doing a great job of clearing the trail to plausible deniability. What a slimey bastard,


44 posted on 11/09/2012 5:22:08 PM PST by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

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.

Rats.


45 posted on 11/09/2012 5:22:08 PM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Roger Clemens comes to mind


46 posted on 11/09/2012 5:25:04 PM PST by JoanneSD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

“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.


47 posted on 11/09/2012 5:25:57 PM PST by BIV (typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
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.

Why, then, do CEOs of major corporations show up to testify before Congress when bidden?

48 posted on 11/09/2012 5:27:10 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“Why can’t Petraeus testify?”

Because he was holding Admiral Barnstead’s Preakness bet....


49 posted on 11/09/2012 5:28:23 PM PST by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
They can also cite people for contempt of Congress if they lie or refuse to answer questions.

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.

50 posted on 11/09/2012 5:29:01 PM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson