Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably because as a now civilian, Petraeus as a civilian, he would not have any CIA materials on hand as he would be denied access to those documents on Benghazi to bring to the hearing. But he still can get a subpoena to testify. He would have to go by memory alone when answering questions. He could say 'I don't remember, I don't have access to documents on hand" or something to that extent.
Couldn't Senators who want to know, subpoena those documents from the CIA and provide him with them?
This is not an obstacle to Petraeus' testifying.
Has Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) explained how she was able to conclude so quickly, that he should not testify?
Probably because as a now civilian, Petraeus as a civilian, he would not have any CIA materials on hand as he would be denied access to those documents on Benghazi to bring to the hearing. But he still can get a subpoena to testify. He would have to go by memory alone when answering questions. He could say 'I don't remember, I don't have access to documents on hand" or something to that extent.
Plausible deniability should he choose. But, seeing as he is doing the "honorable" thing by resigning (although it was determined there was no breach of national security and having an affair isn't a crime), he should do the honorable thing by telling what he knows.
There are two hearings that he was supposed to appear before. Michael Morell, the acting director, will be appearing in place of Petreaus.
Something went wrong (and then some) where Benghazi is concerned and who better to place the blame on than the person who isn't in the room? If that happens, Petreaus has nothing to lose by speaking out. He can tell the members of the hearing what transpired/the timeline/documents they can request from the administration/agencies to support their investigation and/or his testimony.
Couldn't Senators who want to know, subpoena those documents from the CIA and provide him with them?
This is not an obstacle to Petraeus' testifying.
Has Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) explained how she was able to conclude so quickly, that he should not testify?
Feinstein said on Fox News Sunday that Petraeus could still be "summonsed to meetings" with Congress on Benghazi.
Petraeus never was scheduled to "tesitfy", unless the Senate Intellegence Committee intended to swear him in. He was scheduled to attend a closed-door hearing with Feinstein's committee next week.
Screw that! I want to seem Petraeus sworn in, and telling what he knows!
Feinstein seems primarliy concerned that the FBI apparently has been on this for months, and never gave the Intel Committee a heads up, as common sense and the law requires:
Couldn't Senators who want to know, subpoena those documents from the CIA and provide him with them?
This is not an obstacle to Petraeus' testifying.
Has Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) explained how she was able to conclude so quickly, that he should not testify?
Because he is an unemployed civilian, not actively employed by the government. People who testify at hearings are political or employees of government and are "invited", which is basically a command to appear.
As a civilian he could decline the invitation but he could then be subpeonaed, madating an appearance. He was either told not to appear or made the decision himself not to appear. It would be up to the members of the hearing to decide if they want to subpeona him. If he doesn't appear at these two hearings, depending on what transpires during these two hearings, there will probably be more hearings and he may be subpeonaed then.
Plausible deniability should he choose. But, seeing as he is doing the "honorable" thing by resigning (although it was determined there was no breach of national security and having an affair isn't a crime), he should do the honorable thing by telling what he knows.
There are two hearings that he was supposed to appear before. Michael Morell, the acting director, will be appearing in place of Petreaus.
Something went wrong (and then some) where Benghazi is concerned and who better to place the blame on than the person who isn't in the room? If that happens, Petreaus has nothing to lose by speaking out. He can tell the members of the hearing what transpired/the timeline/documents they can request from the administration/agencies to support their investigation and/or his testimony.
I agree. If he loves his country and those 4 stars he wore then he should tell what he knows without hesitation. The question is could the Obama administration put a injunction on those records and prevent them from being released as a stall tactic, like with Fast and Furious.
Couldn't Senators who want to know, subpoena those documents from the CIA and provide him with them?
This is not an obstacle to Petraeus' testifying.
Has Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) explained how she was able to conclude so quickly, that he should not testify?
Yep the Senate could do that but I think that the House tried that route with Fast and Furious and nothing came of it. We do still have the same people running our government, I think.
The person testifying would have to be the head man at CIA and Petraeus isn't that man. I am sure that the administration thought this whole thing through and Feinstein is a member of their party.
Feinstein said on Fox News Sunday that Petraeus could still be "summonsed to meetings" with Congress on Benghazi.
Petraeus never was scheduled to "tesitfy", unless the Senate Intellegence Committee intended to swear him in. He was scheduled to attend a closed-door hearing with Feinstein's committee next week.
Screw that! I want to seem Petraeus sworn in, and telling what he knows!
Feinstein seems primarliy concerned that the FBI apparently has been on this for months, and never gave the Intel Committee a heads up, as common sense and the law requires:
He will testify. Not this coming week as originally planned, but probably next week.
He will most likely go willingly, but if not, they'll subpoena him.
Don't worry.
I saw that on Fox this morning.
Wow! Diane was hot under the collar!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
