Green Room

Why can’t/won’t Petraeus testify?

posted at 5:47 pm on November 9, 2012 by

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.  That seems curious in and of itself — after all, the attack involved the CIA annex and two CIA operatives died.  Did Petraeus not take part in any decisions about the response to the attack or intel gathering before and after it occurred?  If all Petraeus had to offer Congress in testimony was a rundown of the organizational efforts, then his deputy Mike Morrell can give that to Congress.

Don’t be surprised to see a subpoena heading Petraeus’ way from the House Oversight Committee to make sure that’s the case, though.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

maybe obama got to him so he wouldnt testify against obama’s handling of benghazi torture ad murder of amer ambassador

wholefoodsrepublican on November 9, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Perhaps it’s because he is a cabinet member and they are required to report to congress periodically without subpoena. Now that he is a private citizen, the process will now require a subpoena. just a thought.

willytvirgin on November 9, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Ask Eric Holder and/or Valerie Jarrett…I’m sure they have thought all of this through.

HumpBot Salvation on November 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Perhaps it’s because he is a cabinet member and they are required to report to congress periodically without subpoena. Now that he is a private citizen, the process will now require a subpoena. just a thought.

..my bad. CIA is not Cabinet level but enjoys Cabinet level access.

willytvirgin on November 9, 2012 at 6:01 PM

HumpBot Salvation on November 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

this

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I put my theory in the other thread: It’s all about the NDA.

Like anyone with a security clearance who resigns or retires from the Government, I’m sure Petraeus will have to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) which prohibits him from revealing classified or sensitive information which he learned on the job. If you violate an NDA, the Government can go after you civilly or criminally (as the former SEAL who wrote the Bin Laden tell-all is in the process of discovering). If Petraeus is subpoenaed as a private citizen, could he tell Congress that the NDA prohibits him from answering the questions they are asking without prior clearance from the Administration? I don’t know; I’m not a lawyer, but it seems plausible.

/Okay, tin foil hat off…

Hayabusa on November 9, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Any lawyers here with expertise in national security matters who could clarify the effect of signing an NDA on testifying before Congress?

Hayabusa on November 9, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Don’t be surprised to see a subpoena heading Petraeus’ way from the House Oversight Committee to make sure that’s the case, though.

and sing like a bird hopefully

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 6:13 PM

He basically tattooed the words ‘Subpoena me’ on his forehead.

ElectricPhase on November 9, 2012 at 6:32 PM

This does two things, actually:
1) Keeps him from testifying. ‘Why’ is a good question.
2) Destroys any chances of Patraeus running in future elections.

Two birds with one stone for Obama and the democrats. #WINNING

Timothy S. Carlson on November 9, 2012 at 6:50 PM

The house committee can offer him full immunity from ANYTHING in exchange for his testimony. Break through the logjam of secrecy and incompetence of the Obama regime.

karenhasfreedom on November 9, 2012 at 7:11 PM

When I heard Petraeus would not be testifying my first thought was…WTF is that BS. Pardon my French.

aposematic on November 9, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Maybe that’s why Hillary is making her exit, she’s been in these situations before and knows the ropes.

mixplix on November 9, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Meanwhile, Obama is on the way to the far east….

itsspideyman on November 9, 2012 at 8:13 PM

When did Obama know about the affair and did he keep a compromised official in power to keep this under wraps till after the election?

njrob on November 9, 2012 at 8:19 PM

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.

That is probably true. Was he even in the office that day? It was Sept.11, he was probably out doing a 9/11 Muslim outreach in Virginia or something.

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Don’t be surprised to see a subpoena heading Petraeus’ way from the House Oversight Committee to make sure that’s the case, though. – from the article.

I am sure he is going to be forced to testify. Republicans are going to make sure that he does. Democrat in the Senate don’t want him to tell what he knows.

SC.Charlie on November 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

petraeus is protecting the girl. If you don’t squeal we won’t kill (the girl)

rik on November 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

An Officer is allowed to resign in stead of prosecutions. It is a time honored traditions. Once he resigned all investigation stops.
Now lets keep a few other things in mind. The highest rank in the Army is Full Colonel, all General Officer ranks are Congressional Appointments. What does that mean well it can get complicated. There is your serving rank, your temporary rank, your permanent rank, your retirement rank.
They could all be the same OR they could all be different. Been looking and can’t find out.
Next is General Officers serve for life they do not retire they can only resign.
Finally Congress give and Congress can take away at any time.

jpcpt03 on November 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

He should definitely testify. If he doesn’t, it would look even more suspicious, I think.

My gut tells me Gen. Petraeus is an honorable man. It’s a shame he got mixed up with this gang of thugs who purport to run our country right now.

As far as the affair, I would think the regime has known about it. I believe the FBI investigation concluded sometime in 2011.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

This does two things, actually:
1) Keeps him from testifying. ‘Why’ is a good question.
2) Destroys any chances of Patraeus running in future elections.

Two birds with one stone for Obama and the democrats. #WINNING

Timothy S. Carlson on November 9, 2012 at 6:50 PM

His resignation doesn’t prevent him from testifying. It just requires that a subpoena be issued.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Trey Gowdy is on Greta’s show right now, and he says Petraeus will definitely be subpoenaed.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 10:29 PM

If Petraeus doesn’t have any information, he’s more than capable of telling the committee that himself, under oath.

IndieDogg on November 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

How can he not have to testify? This is very fishy. I’ve been telling the husband for the past couple weeks that something impeachable has occurred and this just seals it for me now.

rdb16 on November 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Petraeus MUST testify about Benghazi.

NO cover ups can be allowed on this disaster.

Or this will be the first nail in the O-Administration’s coffin.

profitsbeard on November 10, 2012 at 12:56 AM

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.

Seriously, Ed??

BTW, all along Petraeus’ silence has been deafening. Surely we’re not meant to believe the spin I heard on Fox that D.P. informed President Pink Slips night before last – that something under FBI investigation was unknown to BO. This has been known for awhile now, BO knew it, and it was held back because any other timing was complicated for BO’s election efforts.

FWIW, I vaguely recall reading a rumor of some blockbuster story coming of an intelligence officer having an affair weeks ago. Wish I could remember where I saw it.

Buy Danish on November 10, 2012 at 7:05 AM

That is probably true. Was he even in the office that day? It was Sept.11, he was probably out doing a 9/11 Muslim outreach in Virginia or something.

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Ha! Seriously though – This wasn’t a one day event. This is about security requests, possible gun running to Syria, intelligence in advance of the attack in Bengazi (& Cairo) which any fool can tell has Zawahiri’s fingerprints all over it… and so much more.

Buy Danish on November 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM

IF the congress requested that the Director of the CIA testify then Pretraeus’ resignation removes him from the list. For now. Next he will be subpoenaed by name, not title.

oldernwiser on November 10, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Or this will be the first nail in the O-Administration’s coffin.

Too funny. There’s been hundreds of nails in O’s admin coffin and the media just pulled them out and moved on.

O’s best protection – Joe Biden

katablog.com on November 10, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Because the admin said so that’s why, peeps, quit wondering why anymore, it’s patently obvious we are not playing by the same rules anymore, we look like fools when we ponder these anomalies..they are not weird or strange they are simply not playing by the same rules, they make them up.

Alinsky on November 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Why?
Well, maybe he was literally “All In” when the fit hit the shan.
What an embarrassment.

“The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.”

Well, isn’t that special. Did that little punk Petraeus say, “Have a Cigar” too?
“It’ll go far”, ya know … Just like BillyJeff from ArKINsaw …

Pink Floyd – Have a Cigar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n9FdoCUHBE

This Veterans’ Day weekend too.
A slimy little puke of a ticket-puncher who was never qualified to be CIA MFIC.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on November 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Because the admin said so that’s why, peeps, quit wondering why anymore, it’s patently obvious we are not playing by the same rules anymore, we look like fools when we ponder these anomalies..they are not weird or strange they are simply not playing by the same rules, they make them up.

Alinsky on November 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Yes – the one thing we know with certainty is King Putt doesn’t think rules apply to him. “good for thee, but not for me”

itsacookbook on November 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM

My question is how much did Hillary’s aid, the Muslim girl have a part to play in this? What advice was she giving Hillary? There has been way too much schmoozing of Hamas and other terrorist type groups. Then did Valerie Jarret and negotiations with Iran play a part. Were both of these women trying to down play the events, telling their bosses “nothing bad is going to happen, no one is going to get killed” … “oh shlt what just happened, that’s not what they told me they were going to do!!”

There really is something fishy in Denmark. I have really been wondering why the Lord let Obama win … him and his regime falling apart … and I do mean falling apart and out of office right after the election would actually be sweeter. It would be hard for the MSM to explain why they ignored all this, hard for people to explain why they let them selves get fooled. All of this was knowable before the election.

I think Obama is arrogant enough to let his “I won” double down and get him into deep Nixonian trouble.

odannyboy on November 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM

When he walks out the door he loses his clearance and therefore access and/or abilty to discuss classified information.

NHElle on November 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Hillary is doing the same thing. Vince Foster was going to testify too and look what happened. People are blinded into thinking that our Government obeys the law and incapable of fabricating stories that one only reads in novels. We only learned the tragic stories of the Clintons after they were out of the White House but there’s this belief they care.

mixplix on November 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM

In the long run it doesn’t matter anyway. No one will pay a price for Benghazi other than maybe a sacrificial underling. I’m not dismissing what happened, but the dictator got a second term and he will never be held to account for anything.

Dan_Yul on November 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM

When he walks out the door he loses his clearance and therefore access and/or abilty to discuss classified information.

NHElle on November 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You are correct that he discuss classified information in his day-to-day life. This isn’t about his day-to-day life. He can be required to testify before congress in a closed hearing about what he knows.

chemman on November 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

he can’t discuss classified information in his day-to-day life. This isn’t about his day-to-day life. He can be required to testify before congress in a closed hearing about what he knows.

chemman on November 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

FIFM

chemman on November 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM

It’s a shame he got mixed up with this gang of thugs who purport to run our country right now.

They actually are running our country…as deep into the ground as can .

Hammie on November 10, 2012 at 12:14 PM

“The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.”

Just a reminder: It’s “duck and cover,” General. (Not that the maneuver is effective in either situation.)

Barnestormer on November 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Or this will be the first nail in the O-Administration’s coffin.

profitsbeard on November 10, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Heh, there was enough nails in his 1st term to build a roof…nails do not penetrate teflon…

hillsoftx on November 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Or this will be the first nail in the O-Administration’s coffin.

profitsbeard on November 10, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Heh, there was enough nails in his 1st term to build a roof…nails do not penetrate teflon…

hillsoftx on November 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

…gee whiz…wonder how the MSM will handle this?

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM