Skip to comments.
Why can’t/won’t Petraeus testify?
Hotair ^
Posted on 11/09/2012 4:55:44 PM PST by chessplayer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-129 next last
To: Cicero
If he’s concerned about his honor, he’ll testify. Otherwise, his whole life has been a charade. How much worse can it get for him?
61
posted on
11/09/2012 5:38:23 PM PST
by
Mach9
To: catfish1957
Yes, and WHO will take the place/position of Petreaus? Did he get told to resign with a flimsy reason (while retaining full retirement benefits)or be hit with a treason charge over Benghazi?
Save obamas butt and open the CIA for an obama loyalist. Two birds with one stone.
Just like Holder resigns and suddenly a spot will open on the supreme court - for Holder to be appointed to.
Get ready.
To: Red Steel
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. I went looking to answer this question.
"General Petraeus will not resign his commission and come to the CIA until hes able to transition the mission in Afghanistan to General Allen."
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs112th/112307.pdf
To: chessplayer
Petraeus is choosing not to testify and it's a chickenshirt decision. He will have to testify if subpoenaed.
64
posted on
11/09/2012 5:40:18 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Who is John Galt?)
To: chessplayer
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. After all, who can believe a man who serially cheats upon his wife of 37 years, nevermind the fact (potentially) that almost half of those who would question him are probably guilty of the same thing.
Frankly, this looks like a big set-up and an even bigger power play. Lots to cover up here. Possible gun-running to Syria and perhaps more.
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.
66
posted on
11/09/2012 5:41:28 PM PST
by
Jim Noble
(Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
To: yldstrk
He can only plead the Fifth if testifying will incriminate him. Not only am I not a Constitutional scholar,I'm not even a lawyer.However,I think that a person can take the 5th when he fears prosecution even if that fear is unfounded in law.However,if offered immunity from prosecution (which I suspect Congress has the authority to do) he *could* be compelled to testify.Below is the relevant portion of the Amendment.
..nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..
Fairly vague IMO...which,if I'm correct,would give a potential accused wide latitude in deciding when he/she could be charged with a crime.
67
posted on
11/09/2012 5:41:44 PM PST
by
Gay State Conservative
(Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
To: Jim Robinson
Wire him up. An eighty vote bell ringer circuit strategically placed ought to do the trick. I think the Dems were using "eighty vote ringer circuits" in Philly and Cincinnati. ;-)
To: yldstrk
Would be interesting to know the time-line of the affair. Is this from his past and is only becoming an issue now, before an investigation into Benghazi?
The book came out in January.
69
posted on
11/09/2012 5:44:02 PM PST
by
opentalk
To: Mach9
They never had any trouble questioning mafiosi or those who knew anything about mafia activities. Nor did they have problems questioning resigned Nixon appointees dring the Watergate trials. Why should this be any different? Reminds me...bring back HUAC. :-)
To: chessplayer
Subpoena. I say again Subpoena. The general does not have the right to not testify (or go the 5th.)
71
posted on
11/09/2012 5:45:53 PM PST
by
jimfree
To: BIV
"The bastards were trying to blackmail him to testify a certain way and he called their bluff.Now we're getting close. This makes the most sense so far. This will blow up in his face, like all the rest. Bet on it. And it's BIG and NASTY.
72
posted on
11/09/2012 5:46:50 PM PST
by
chiller
(Sky is the limit with max T-Partiers in the House and Senate to stifle the RINOs)
To: Alberta's Child
I’m saying he may have been ejected for being the enemy.. fooled the rats.
73
posted on
11/09/2012 5:46:58 PM PST
by
txhurl
To: Red Steel
.
I may be wrong, but my gut feel is that Gen. Petraeus is an honorable soldier ...
He's trying to telegraph a message by his resignation ... and this "nonsense" about an "affair" for public consumption by the "47-percent" that supported the "Zero from Kenya" ...
This is going to get really interesting ...
It goes without saying that the good General needs to be be well-armed ...
Think: "Gladiator" ... after Comodus has Murdered the Emperor Marcus Aurelius ...
Just for the record ... "Obama is as evil and deadly as Comodus".
.
74
posted on
11/09/2012 5:47:04 PM PST
by
Patton@Bastogne
(Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will DEFEAT the Obama-Romney Socialist Gay-Marriage Axis of Evil)
To: Alberta's Child
If he was being blackmailed with this Broadwell affair into silence about Bengazzi, then there is now nothing further to blackmail him with. The affair is now out of the bag and he has resigned as CIA Director. So he is now free to testify truthfully about Bengazzi.
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 bluffThat was exactly my first thought.
To: KosmicKitty
.
General Petraeus is smarter than that ...
Hell, he commanded CIA Counter-Intelligence ... spy-vs-spy ...
There is "no way" that the General would STUPIDLY allow himself to be "compromised" via sex with ANY woman.
Period.
And I say again.
"Period".
.
77
posted on
11/09/2012 5:51:40 PM PST
by
Patton@Bastogne
(Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will DEFEAT the Obama-Romney Socialist Gay-Marriage Axis of Evil)
To: Uncle Chip
Very good point.
Again -- I would appreciate any input from Freepers on this who know a lot more about the legal side of this than I do, but I'm wondering ...
Does Petraeus' decision to resign have any implications for any potential future claims of executive privilege by the White House? If he is a "civilian" and no longer serving in the executive branch of the U.S. government, is he now free to testify on anything and everything without any legal pressure from the White House?
78
posted on
11/09/2012 5:53:01 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
To: chessplayer
Maybe he’s afraid of ending up under a canon in Fort Marcy Park?
79
posted on
11/09/2012 5:54:26 PM PST
by
Trod Upon
(Obama: Making the Carter malaise look good. Misery Index in 3...2...1)
To: 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: Not disqualified, rather the Director of the CIA was called to testify which Petraeus is no longer. But he can he called by name.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-129 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson