Breaking: CIA Director Petraeus Resigning

The Petraeus affair muddies the water which diverts our attention away from the truth. Days and weeks are going to be wasted analyzing these emails and his clandestine affair. His personal life has no bearing on the Benghazi debacle and does not excuse him from testifying in front of Congress. Subpoena him. He'll show up if he doesn't go the way of Breitbart.

reply to post by Afterthought

I just looked at an article on The Hill.com that cleared things up just a bit. It is the SENATE committee that he has been 'excused' from. Yes, the Senate committee, chaired by a Democratic Senator.

ETA: If Petraeus is on Obama's side in this thing, wouldn't they want him before that committee? Let's see what happens in the House, where the Democratic Party isn't making the decisions. That is, if Petraeus doesn't have an unfortunate accident or commits 'suicide'.

Regarding the laws surrounding immunity from testifying in a court of law, here is what I've been able to find:
www.straightdope.com...

Let's start with the basics. You can get several kinds of immunity. The broadest is transactional immunity. A witness with transactional immunity is immune from criminal prosecution for all conduct (transactions) discussed in the testimony. Use immunity is the narrowest. A witness with use immunity can't have her testimony used against her but may be prosecuted for the conduct she testifies about based on independent evidence. In the middle is "use and derived use" immunity, which means neither the testimony nor information derived from the testimony can be used against the witness in a criminal prosecution.

Formal immunity is granted by a court, usually to reluctant witnesses. The Fifth Amendment prevents a witness from being compelled to testify against himself. Often a witness called before a grand jury will refuse to answer certain questions on Fifth Amendment grounds, even though his testimony is crucial to a case against someone else. Formal immunity (sort of) solves this problem. Section 6002 of Title 18 of the United States Code says a witness can't refuse to testify if the court has granted him immunity. By statute, only a U.S. attorney — a federal prosecutor — can request immunity, and only with the approval of the attorney general or certain others in the attorney general's office. If the U.S. attorney requests immunity, the court pretty much has to grant it. The kind of immunity granted is use and derived use immunity. If the witness refuses to testify after it has been granted, the court can hold him in contempt.

Formal immunity is no help with witnesses the authorities want to question before convening a grand jury — for example, if they need information to find a fugitive or get a warrant. That's where informal immunity agreements come into play. The prosecution and the witness can agree to just about any kind of immunity they want, and the agreement will be enforced like any other contract, with one caveat: Unlike a formal grant of immunity, immunity agreements entered into by the federal government aren't binding on the states — see www.usdoj.gov...

Now to your question — can the President enter into an immunity agreement with a potential witness? Probably yes, but two troubling possibilities arise. First, what if federal prosecutors won't play ball? Can the President simply order the U.S. attorney not to prosecute? This is more complicated than it seems. Many scholars contend that, George W. Bush's protestations notwithstanding, the President in many contexts is not the decider regarding federal prosecutions — he's authorized to appoint and remove deciders, but his job is to supervise.

A more recent example is the the infamous Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal, when Richard Nixon instructed his subordinates to dismiss the special prosecutor. Both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused the order and were promptly fired. Nixon finally appointed Solicitor General Robert Bork, who did the deed. The Washington Post noted that this "immediately raised prospects that the President himself might be impeached or forced to resign" [link].

Maybe Obama has granted Patraeus immunity?
I'm now left with more questions than answers.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Eyes Wide Shut style, as a way to blackmail him in the future.

I thought about that too in an earlier post I wondered was it a set up.

You know Obama and Hillary and Petraeus were really not all that close, I hear they didn't like each, a few weeks back I did some research on him and didn't like a lot of what I read.

reply to post by butcherguy


Ah! Thank you for doing some digging and posting that bit of info.
I wasn't aware of that situation.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Afterthought

 

I just looked at an article on The Hill.com that cleared things up just a bit. It is the SENATE committee that he has been 'excused' from. Yes, the Senate committee, chaired by a Democratic Senator.

ETA: If Petraeus is on Obama's side in this thing, wouldn't they want him before that committee? Let's see what happens in the House, where the Democratic Party isn't making the decisions. That is, if Petraeus doesn't have an unfortunate accident or commits 'suicide'.

edit on 10-11-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

I think the jury is still out on this..............

Reuters says Petraeus was scheduled to testify next week behind closed doors to the House and Senate intelligence committees about the Benghazi events, however he will now not give that testimony.

CNN says CIA Acting Director Michael Morrell will now testify in Petraeus' place, according to officials.

reply to post by Afterthought

Maybe Obama has granted Patraeus immunity?

Obama may be able to assert Executive Privilege, if Petraeus is still on his team.

reply to post by butcherguy


Indeed!
As I mentioned earlier, it may be that Obama is keeping Patraeus on as an advisor. In any good war games strategy, you should never let go of someone who possesses mountains of sensitive information.

No Generals resigned over 911, but Petraeus does over an affair.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Afterthought

 

Maybe Obama has granted Patraeus immunity?

Obama may be able to assert Executive Privilege, if Petraeus is still on his team.

Or shut him up if he's not. It is a win win for the crooks

reply to post by gmonundercover
RE: "I think the jury is still out on this.............." Referring to the upcoming House and Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, and will Petraeus testify before the Republican led House hearings, but not before the Democratic led Senate hearings, and whether or not Petraeus is to be required to testify at all.

For more on this by way of a recent up-date please go here ---> Petraeus' Resignation Will Stop Him From Testifying About Benghazi -

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

First thoughts are this has Benghazi written all over it. But, over on another forum someone linked this from back in July from the NYT.

From NYT advice column

MY WIFE’S LOVER My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD

WOW

I don't know if anyone here has found that yet or not but it's interesting, and I hope it doesn't get lost in what might be another mega-thread.

I hope the House continues to wish to speak to Petreaus, and feel that the Democratic controlled Senate is probably all too happy to have someone who wasn't in a position of authority to testify on Benghazi.

reply to post by jefwane

Might be worth starting another thread so that it isn't lost in the shuffle here.

Interesting info, first I heard of it. Thanks for bringing it.

The insulting to our intelligence factor is that Democrats are now trotting out the meme how he was so looking forward to testifying but now won't- for whatever B.S. reason- he has personal issues to work on, his deputy CIA Director will now testify, etc.

As Republicans have already correctly pointed out, nothing whatsoever has changed with regards to questioning him. The House Committee absolutely will command him to testify about the Libya cover-up (benghazigate).

I don't understand the flap about this. This is one of those fabricated issues in my mind. A distraction, as pertinent as the film that confused everyone once already.

Congressional Republicans have mercilessly hammered the White House over its initial claims the attack was the result of an anti-American protest gone violently wrong, only later admitting the strike was the work of Libyan terrorists.

During the election campaign it was an attempt to smear Obama's credibility wether or not he "knew" about an attack on the embassy before he said he did and why it happened. And now what is it? Payback? My guess it has little to do with Betrayed us resigning or all this intel hush hush about the embassy and wether the Libyans like us or not. Maybe I got this wrong, but WTF...

The Heil

Some interesting things about Paula,
www.thedailybeast.com...

To say Paula Broadwell is an overachiever is an understatement. She grew up in North Dakota, graduated from West Point and worked in military intelligence. She studied Arabic in the Middle East—Jordan in particular—and specialized in counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and geopolitical analysis.

www.thedailybeast.com...

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by jefwane

 

Might be worth starting another thread so that it isn't lost in the shuffle here.
Interesting info, first I heard of it. Thanks for bringing it.

Following your suggestion - Please see thread here - on this breaking topic

Petraeus is an Idiot. That was my first thought, when hearing about this monkey business. But, I think there are layers of crap in this whole mess that is so deep that your head would explode without the right pressure suit.

Fishy and spooky.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Some interesting things about Paula,
www.thedailybeast.com...

To say Paula Broadwell is an overachiever is an understatement. She grew up in North Dakota, graduated from West Point and worked in military intelligence. She studied Arabic in the Middle East—Jordan in particular—and specialized in counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and geopolitical analysis.

www.thedailybeast.com...

The more I find out about this whole debacle. The more I have thoughts of the show/series...Homeland....

Des

Originally posted by intrptr
I don't understand the flap about this.
The Heil

He testified in October that the CIA did not order any stand down. This contradicts what Obama says.
That is the flap, obviously.