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

Skip to comments.

Why can’t/won’t 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 previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last
To: jimfree
The general does not have the right to not testify (or go the 5th.)

I think we need a lawyer to weigh in on this particular point.

81 posted on 11/09/2012 5:57:23 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Good research there, GSC. U.S. courts have been very broad in their interpretation of the protections afforded under the Fifth Amendment.

Oliver North had all of his criminal convictions in the Iran Contra case tossed out for this very reason. The judge in his appeal was pretty harsh in making his decision, too. He didn't just overturn the convictions in a way that may have enabled the prosecution to pursue the case without using the protected testimony, either. The prosecution didn't have that option because the judge didn't really "overturn" the convictions ... he ruled that North never should have been indicted in the first place.

82 posted on 11/09/2012 5:57:41 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Thanks for the clarification on that. It explains why he is no longer even compelled to testify in the capacity in which he was originally called.


83 posted on 11/09/2012 5:59:15 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Same thought here.

He knows too much.


84 posted on 11/09/2012 5:59:50 PM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If Petraeus fabricated this affair so he could have an excuse for resigning, he would have been better off announcing that he had been having an affair with Barney Frank. He’d be at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2016 if that had been the case.

And Barney would be on the bottom, I'm sure.

85 posted on 11/09/2012 6:01:10 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
He also had a security clearance....which makes him doubly responsive to Congressional inquires.
86 posted on 11/09/2012 6:01:13 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

I’m a lawyer. The House could subpoena him. He’d be required to show up. If he doesn’t want to testify he can plead the fifth. The reasons for pleading the 5th are between him and his lawyer. The only way they could force him to testify is if they offered him blanket immunity. If they gave him immunity, and he still refused to testify, they could jail him for contempt.


87 posted on 11/09/2012 6:04:51 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: publius911; TigersEye; Marine_Uncle; onyx
Sure smells that way.

It's all about Benghazi.

88 posted on 11/09/2012 6:08:33 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

He won’t testify because our house leader will protect him.


89 posted on 11/09/2012 6:08:34 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus
Thanks, Gluteus.

I'm starting to get a sense that Obama's second term is going to be awfully interesting, and that he may end up wishing Romney had won before all is said and done.

90 posted on 11/09/2012 6:12:37 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

“Remember the guy whose video supposedly provoked the attacks on our middle-east embassies?
Where is he now”

‘Nuff said.”

He was just sentenced to a year in jail for ‘parole violation’.

Which country are we living in?


91 posted on 11/09/2012 6:25:16 PM PST by Not gonna take it anymore (If Obama were twice as smart as he is, he would be a wit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Maybe a little tin foil hat here, but with NBC news claiming she was attempting to access his e-mails and classified information I'm wondering if neither one of them were doing anything wrong but he was preparing to tell all, she knew to much, and O’s people said to both of them go away quietly and keep your mouths shut, we'll say it was an affair. She may not want to keep her mouth shut and and so NBC (of all networks) comes out with the story that she tried to hack his e-mail and classified info.

Correct me if I'm wrong but before this story, they both seemed to have very good reputations and backgrounds. He's in a 47 year marriage with no history of womanizing and she's married to a doctor with little kids, no history of any wrong doing. Am I correct?

92 posted on 11/09/2012 6:27:52 PM PST by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

The Obama administration probably has dug up dirt on every politician in D.C.
No one, including republicans will push Bengazi because Obama has mounds of dirt on them ALL.

The whole damn D.C. has turned into a pile of smelly manure.


93 posted on 11/09/2012 6:29:57 PM PST by doc maverick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: publius911

The James McCord of this affair has not appeared yet - but he surely will.

Murder, though it hath no tongue, will speak as with miraculous organ.


94 posted on 11/09/2012 6:33:23 PM PST by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: miele man

Seems to me if Petraeus now testifies it could be damaging. Now, because he is an admitted adulterer, his character is called into question and; therefore, his veracity as a witness is tainted.


Good points. Destroy his credibility if he is forced to testify.


95 posted on 11/09/2012 6:33:23 PM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; mickie; flaglady47; surfer
Something extraordinary was said on TV tonight that seems to have been missed.....and has been totally unremarked upon in this forum.

"Stunning" is the word that comes to my mind after hearing a comment by an ex-CIA agent appearing on Fox to the effect that CIA operatives and employees are "happy to see Petraeus resign" from the force after the scandal broke this morning .

But not "happy" for the reason one might think!

The CIA, stated the former agent, DID NOT WANT TO SEE THEIR DIRECTOR LEAVE BECAUSE THEY NEVER WANTED HIM WORKING FOR OBAMA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Now this is earthshaking. Does this mean the CIA is aligned against the President.....in other words is there an under-the-radar rebellion going on against the Administration deep in the bowels of this most important intelligence agency?

And if so, how many other intelligence agencies feel the same way?

The agent that spilled the beans tonight is a personal friend of the General....he appeared quite emotional on the TV screen as he emitted a deep, deep sigh before talking about his friend.

He was on for a very few minutes. It's my opinion that he was deliberately on the program for one reason only.....to slip the above-mentioned nugget of information into the public arena......not to muddy things, but to make some things a little clearer. I must say his remark started me on a whole new line of thinking.....

Leni

96 posted on 11/09/2012 6:34:08 PM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron; Travis McGee

Thanks for the book recommendation. I had not heard of that author and found the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_DeMille

“DeMille has also written under the pen names Jack Cannon, Kurt Ladner, and Brad Matthews.”

For a sample of Brad Matthew’s writing, this is an interesting little fable:

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/


97 posted on 11/09/2012 6:39:09 PM PST by TEXOKIE (Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. EdmondBurke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Interesting....did not know that. Thanks for the info.


98 posted on 11/09/2012 6:45:50 PM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Do you remember on which Fox program or the time you saw this interview?


99 posted on 11/09/2012 6:56:54 PM PST by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

If the affair happened while Petraeus was still a General, then I believe they can call him back to duty to investigate and punish him. I’m thinking that if the FBI started investigating this last Spring, then Petraeus would have know he was in trouble since that time. I would think the FBI Agents would interview the people who worked with Petraeus in Afghanistan, and one of them would have notified Petraeus that the FBI was looking into his relationship with the reporter. That would have been a tough phone call for Petraeus. He would have known last Spring that Obama had the goods on him. I assume that Holder would have found out and told Obama. So Petraeus is just waiting for Obama to drop the boom on him. Figure out if that explains Petraeus’ behavior over the past several months. Did Petraeus have an affair with her? I’d be about 95% sure he did.


100 posted on 11/09/2012 7:03:48 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 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