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.
“Bitch set me up.”
I’m beginning to seriously doubt the affair angle.
Because he cares about his family?
Could be. There is no doubt in my mind that obama would “disappear” his family. It would be the Chicago Way. I’m wondering why obama sicced the FBI on him in the first place.
I was wondering when someone would mention Roger or even Mark McGwire or Conseco or Giambi.... ;-)
Obama is doing a great job of clearing the trail to plausible deniability. What a slimey bastard,
Duh. THe Benghazi thing is most likely huge and these gexperts are CYAing like there’s no tomorrow, and there isn’t for them in any case.
The spin now is that Hillary was always planning on resigning after 4 years.
Anyone saying that must provide proof.
It is not true.
Rats.
Roger Clemens comes to mind
“the way I take it is this: The bastards were trying to blackmail him to testify a certain way and he called their bluff.”
That is my belief, too.
BTW, didn’t zero tell someone recently not to call his bluff? HA HA What a tool.
Why, then, do CEOs of major corporations show up to testify before Congress when bidden?
“Why can’t Petraeus testify?”
Because he was holding Admiral Barnstead’s Preakness bet....
I don't think either House of Congress has tried to directly hold anyone in contempt since the 1930s. The modern practice is for the House (or Senate) to ask the US Attorney for Washington DC to go to US District Court in DC and ask a Judge to hold the person in contempt.
Since both the US Attorney, and the Federal Marshals, work for Attorney General Holder, I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.
If that's the case, then why doesn't the House committee simply issue the subpoena? He could refuse to testify under the Fifth Amendment, but they'd grant him immunity anyway because I'm not sure he's going to be asked anything that might put him in legal trouble.
“Why can’t Petraeus testify?”
Because he was holding Admiral Barnstead’s Preakness bet....
He sure is. And this kind of scheme will be the model Eric Holder will use to avoid and Fast and Furious investigations
How do we know that an affair occured?
These FBI sources that are supposedly furious that he was allowed to stay after they discovered the affair? Who are these FBI agents that are furious? what are their names?
why are they just now talking about it TODAY?
Why are FBI agents talking on condition of annonimity?That’s screwed up
Because he was blackmailed.
You want your pension and avoid a court martial?
Then go quietly into the night and shut up.
I despise this man.
What teakes more bravery? Standing up to the corruption of the entire national political system? Or facing bullets from the enemy on a battlefield?
I submit more grunts face bullets and die than generals.
Failing to testify to safeguard his perps and allowing a rotten administration to survive, does not tell me much about this man's character. All he had to do is tell the truth and refuse to be blackmailed.
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.
Remove him ? Force him out ? Discredit him at least.
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?
Pete King said tonight that nothing prevented Congress from calling on Petraeus. If that means subpoena, oh well.
It’s a Senate committee and they’re not calling him.
If they did, or if the House called him, then he’d testify.
Agree.
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.