Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: basalt

The thing that makes no sense to me is, if Petraeus had decided to tell the truth, then revealing the affair takes away that as a potential blackmail threat. So what did the Obama gang have to gain by making the affair known, or accepting a resignation?

If you blackmail someone with damaging information, you leave them alone, where they are, as long as they do not cause any problems for the blackmailer.

Now it would seem Petraeus is free of any blackmail threat, plus he gave up the CIA post so he can’t threatened with firing.

If he’s not free to testify truthfully, then there has to be some further threat, or he’s an unbelievable Obama/Democrat toadie. That’s not the reputation he’s had so far.


32 posted on 11/11/2012 5:10:30 PM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Will88

Answer might be simple: his subordinate, who will testify next week, is going to tell the truth. Thus, the General doesn’t need to testify.


38 posted on 11/11/2012 5:28:02 PM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Will88
The thing that makes no sense to me is, if Petraeus had decided to tell the truth, then revealing the affair takes away that as a potential blackmail threat. So what did the Obama gang have to gain by making the affair known, or accepting a resignation?


Maybe Petraeus was threatened and came out with it to nullify the threat. Now the Admin has nothing to hold over his head

55 posted on 11/11/2012 6:13:07 PM PST by Joshua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson