[FredZarguna]

The rat congressman was the ranking member of the committee meeting in closed session. He described the Republican congressmen present as incredulous at the explanation given what the Pentagon had already told the Senate and hostile to Petraeus. He made his remarks on September 14th. In the intervening two months no Republican present at the meeting has contradicted his characterization. It's pretty safe to assume the story is true.

It's also safe to assume that unless both the chair and the ranking member have offered Petraeus immunity or he's only speaking without being sworn or he didn't give sworn testimony on 9/13 that this current story is BS. Because otherwise Petraeus will be incriminating himself for perjury.

[FreeReign]

The rat congressman was the ranking member of the committee meeting in closed session. He described the Republican congressmen present as incredulous at the explanation given what the Pentagon had already told the Senate and hostile to Petraeus. He made his remarks on September 14th. In the intervening two months no Republican present at the meeting has contradicted his characterization. It's pretty safe to assume the story is true.

What are the rules about divulging testimony in a closed session?

And as I've pointed out in another post, an unnamed source supposedly has contradicted what the Democrat congressman said.