Posted on 11/10/2012 11:24:29 AM PST by Former Fetus
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Friday vowed to subpoena outgoing CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus if he won’t testify voluntarily about the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Gowdy said that while he regretted the “personal ramifications” of Petraeus’ sudden resignation over an extramarital affair, it would not stop Congress from hearing from him about the assault on the consulate that left four Americans dead.
“The fact that he’s resigned and had an affair has nothing to do with whether or not he’s gonna be subpoenaed to Congress,” Gowdy said on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” “I hope we don’t have to subpoena a four-star general and the former CIA director, I hope he would come voluntarily, but if he won’t he will be subpoenaed and none of what has happened today is a defense to a subpoena.”
The CIA has come under sharp scrutiny in the wake of the Benghazi attacks. Petraeus had been slated to testify Thursday at closed congressional hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees, but acting CIA Director Michael Morell is now expected to take his place.
“There’s no way we can get to the bot of Benghazi without David Petraeus,” Gowdy said. “While he might not be around next week because he’s got personal matters, the week after that and the week after that, this excuse will run stale.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Video at link
Doesn’t matter if they subpoena him or not. If the CIA doesn’t clear Petraeus’s testimony, it’ll be a whole lot of “I can’t comment on that question/statement.”
I’d like to know if his statements back in September blaming the video were coerced by the 0bama regime.
LOL!
Exactly. His entire testimony will be nothing but, “I’m afraid I can’t comment on that particular issue. However, I did see ‘Skyfall’ over the weekend; anyone care to talk about that?”
You’re exactly right. He’s now a civilian, a former CIA employee, and anything he can say has to be cleared by the Agency first.
have him testify on the threat that We The People of the US will have him castrated if he refuses to do so. Hey if they (Us Government) want Sharia Law than lets give them the equivalent Sharia Law or sometimes better kown as Old Testament Law. Let’s utilize on politicians and government imbeciles as the guinea pigs. see how it works on the few and the proud idiots that cannot abide by the Rule of Law.
Wouldn’t a grant of immunity cover that ?
I don’t know about Trey Gowdy’s job performance record for your state but, from afar, I sure like the guy. I could listen to him talk all day long... hopefully his talk comes with bare knuckle action.
So, on a side note, who do you think ends up running the Farm? The current temp director, or does Obama make a new pick?
And who will that new pick be?
I’ll go with.......HIllary Clinton!!
Place yer bets, boys and girls!!
Doesn’t his resignation allow him to say more, not less? Aren’t the restrictions off of him?
“You’re exactly right. He’s now a civilian, a former CIA employee, and anything he can say has to be cleared by the Agency first.”
As well as, “On the advice of my attorney I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.”
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters On Petraeus: “Timing Is Just Too Perfect”
LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: The timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. Just as the administration claimed it was purely coincidence that our Benghazi consulate was attacked on the anniversary of September 11th. Now it’s purely coincidence that this affair — extra-marital affair — surfaces right after the election, not before, but right after, but before the intelligence chiefs go to Capitol Hill to get grilled. As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this — I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation — is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it’s getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card.
I don’t like conspiracy theories, I may be totally wrong, but the timing of this, again, right after the election and right before Petraeus is supposed to get grilled on Capitol Hill, it’s really smells.
That’s what I’m thinking. Somebody was holding his affair over his head and he broke clean. He now has the ability to say whatever he wants. This is a closed door interrogation.
Not so fast. He can be called back to active duty as a 4 star general and ordered to testify. He is “not just a civilian” as a retired 4 star. I bet he wants to testify.
That’s a hell of a good question, I must admit.
Is it even possible to give a CIA agent immunity (current or former)?
My gut tells me this ends up with the CIA basically telling any Congressional investigative committee to go f*** itself and the proceed to stonewalling. End of story.
There is an alternative....closed-door, off-the-record hearings, with the testimony classified as “National Security” and all those involved forbidden to publicly disclose the results under penalty of law. That’s actually a distinct possibility.
They could have him testify in private and then redact his testimony.
“Not so fast. He can be called back to active duty as a 4 star general and ordered to testify. He is “not just a civilian” as a retired 4 star. I bet he wants to testify.”
I hope that you are right. But, WHO calls him back? Do you think that Obunghole would let that happen?
Let me re-phrase that, would Jarrett let that happen?
Petraeus fell on his sword for his CIC. Good luck with getting him to testify against his boss.
I don’t think immunity is the issue. The CIA would cite “national security” as an excuse for not allowing him to reveal classified information. That excuse would not work in a closed session, but then we the general public would not learn what happened.
I think it is clear that the regime waited until after the election and then started the purge. They now have a choice position with which they can reward one of their loyalists. The larger question now is: What will Petraeus say in his testimony? I think they need to have a closed session and ensure he can discuss classified, otherwise he may not be able to say much. That may be what the 0bama regime is counting on.
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.