After this disclosure, is the broad well?
1,2,3 this thread will be shut down for asking the same question.
Well now this makes sense.
He may testify but they had to destroy him first. It’s obvious.
Where is he now"
'Nuff said.
Cong Peter King said they need Petraeus’ testimony or their Benghazi investigation will be incomplete.
One way or another, I think he will testify.
Good question. So what if he had an affair. The Benghazzi affair takes precedence. Congress should subpoena him.
Because he cares about his family?
For his own sake, I hope he avoids canoes at all costs in the next few weeks.
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.
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.
Wire him up. An eighty vote bell ringer circuit strategically placed ought to do the trick.
I don’t know, but as a private citizen he can simply plead the Fifth Amendment, I believe.
Either he wants to live or he has loved ones.
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.
Too many unusual circumstances surrounding Benghazi. Each new one makes this smell worse. I have a very suspicious feeling about this.
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.
“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.