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.
I think we need a lawyer to weigh in on this particular point.
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.
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.
Same thought here.
He knows too much.
And Barney would be on the bottom, I'm sure.
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.
It's all about Benghazi.
He won’t testify because our house leader will protect him.
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.
“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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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
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/
Interesting....did not know that. Thanks for the info.
Do you remember on which Fox program or the time you saw this interview?
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.
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.