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.
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?
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.
I went looking to answer this question.
"General Petraeus will not resign his commission and come to the CIA until he’s able to transition the mission in Afghanistan to General Allen."
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs112th/112307.pdf
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.
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.
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.
I think the Dems were using "eighty vote ringer circuits" in Philly and Cincinnati. ;-)
The book came out in January.
Reminds me...bring back HUAC. :-)
Subpoena. I say again Subpoena. The general does not have the right to not testify (or go the 5th.)
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.
I’m saying he may have been ejected for being the enemy.. fooled the rats.
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.
That was exactly my first thought.
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?
Maybe he’s afraid of ending up under a canon in Fort Marcy Park?
Not disqualified, rather the Director of the CIA was called to testify which Petraeus is no longer. But he can he called by name.
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.