Posted on 11/12/2012 10:34:28 AM PST by the_Watchman
Good point.
Why would Obama put Petraeus in charge of the CIA? I haven’t looked it up, but I don’t believe Petraeus was a Military Intelligence Officer. Why put him in charge of the CIA? Panetta was a political appointment. Why does Obama put people he can control in charge of the CIA? That’s the government agency tasked to look at what’s going on overseas. Look at the blog chicagopaytoplay.com. There’s a three part story there on The Chicago Connection. Look at Aaron Klein’s reporting at WND. Look up the phrase RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT. Look up the International Crisis Group(ICG). Look at who is on the ICG Board.....George Soros. The dirty little secret Obama is really trying to cover up is that him and his buddies are starting wars in the Middle East to make money off them.
It’s different for commissioned officers. Unless he resigned his commission and turned in his flag he’s still inactive reserve at the least. Once an officer-—always an officer and the UCMJ applies in limited ways. In this case the chick is still a reserve officer also-—double jeopardy so to speak. But they are talking about things that may have happened while he was still active——and there is no statute of limitations. If he broke a rule under UCMJ but it wasn’t discovered while he was active he doesn’t get a free pass by retiring. The boy seems to be in trouble especially since he’s got a big-mouthed ex girl friend.-——————————————SEMPER FI
Back to active duty? Happens all the time. My Dad got nailed for Korea along with a whole lot of other guys who thot they were done———————And BTW, Gen Davy can easily lose one of his stars in retirement if any of this girly stuff is accurate.
Patraeus was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer in 2009. He must be rid of the cancer!
Thank you for the explanation.
According to several sites - today - the FBI found that there was NOTHING illegal that happened and nobody knows why the story even was reported. It was over and it happened while he was at CIA not before...according to these same sites - New Yorker for one.
Get out~they can do that?
I still think the broad was all part of a Dem set up to make sure Petraeus toed the line.
“For the FBI to say they found out about “adultery” would require them to prove penetration.”
Bingo!
I was appointed as the Summary Court-martial Officer for a Marine SNCO (DI) who was messing around with a permanent personnel Women Marine (WM) PFC. The DI’s wife found out about it and came on base, went to the Parade Deck where the DI was instructing his platoon and commenced to beat him. Not good!
The charges preferred by his Battalion Commander were:
1. “Adultery’ (it was supposedly common knowledge amongst the DIs that he was “intimate” with the WM).
2. Conduct Unbecoming (the “Catch All Charge”) and,
3. Improper Fraternization (with a junior Marine and necessarily an immediate subordinate).
During the course of the Summary Court I brought the WM in and questioned her about the “adultery” and ask if she had sex with the DI and in doing so, did he penetrate her (I had to prove penetration). She declined to answer stating she under advisement of her counsel to exercise her 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination. That’s all SHE had to do and I had to find the DI Not Guilty of that charge.
I did find the DI Guilty of the “Conduct Unbecoming” and the “Improper Fraternization” Charges. I recommended to his Battalion Commander that he be reduced to the next lower grade and forfeit 1/2 base pay for 3 Months. The Battalion Commander suspended my recommended punishment for 6 months. I understand that the DI behaved himself for the 6 months and escaped the punishment.
The WM who work on base under a different command received Non-Judicial Punishment and was reduced to the Pvt and I believe forfeited some base pay.
Bottom line: yes, penetration has to be proven.
No offense taken; I've been wrong before. ;-)
If P4's point was to "remove the blackmail ammo", he could have done that just as easily the week before, and had a much larger effect.
It still looks to me like Barry-O is pulling his strings.
I'll believe otherwise if and when I see it.
Says who?
The whole point of this article is that IF they can find evidence otherwise, they can prosecute.
I agree with you Joe. My experience covers 24+ years, the bulk of it a chaplain, and adultery was always an add-on charge just to make the accused look bad. Other charges stuck. It is difficult to make adultery stick. You have to have the accused willing to play along, because only the Clinton’s leave behind blue dresses.
Normally I would agree with you, but I have to bet if President Obama wanted it to happen it would. As a threat over his head I would think it might be a good one since he could end up losing his retirement.
When the military decides to bring someone back to prosecute them they tend to keep it quiet so it is hard to know when they are likely to do it but they did recall and charge a retired two star General in 1999 for adultery. I read about it just a few minutes ago but his name was not in the article I read so I don’t know the circumstances. That General was charged with two charges that he committed adultery with wives of subordinate officers. I was told there is an active duty General being tried right now for adultery but don’t know the circumstances of that either.
I think if Obama wants Petraeus prosecuted by the military he will be and if not then it won’t happen. Under normal circumstances I would doubt the military would do it just for adultery alone.
Another issue Petraeus may face is according to some reports classified documents were found on Broadwell’s computer by the FBI. Petraeus has stated he did not supply her with those documents. It is not clear whether the documents in question were from the time frame of when he was in the military or if they are documents he may have had access to as CIA director. If the documents are from the military and it seems likely they did come from him then I would think it would be more likely he could face prosecution by the military and then possible adultery and other charges would be included.
This seems to be quite a mess unfolding, and who knows how much we are getting from the media is true? Who knows if there is more to come or how this will play out? Who knows if Obama will protect Petraeus or throw him under the bus?
I do think as the Benghazi investigation unfolds we need to keep all this in mind. I see the affair as a distraction to the investigation right now, but as it plays out it could impact what Petraeus chooses to testify to or how we should judge the truthfulness of his answers considering the rest of his issues.
Maybe its different for officers. I know you can lose your retirement for a felony.
“A shot across the bow! “
Actually, it’s just the first shoe dropping. They’ll silence him for good soon. But first they wreck his life and publicly humiliate him. 10 gets you 20 if not. Any takers?
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.