Written on Monday, November 19, 2012 by Ann-Marie Murrell
Definition of “DISCREDIT A WITNESS”: TO DISCREDIT, practice, evidence. To deprive one of credit or confidence. 2. In general, a party may discredit a witness called by the opposite party, who testifies against him, by proving that his character is such as not to entitle him to credit or confidence, or any other fact which shows he is not, entitled to belief.
Anyone who is familiar with legal terminology (or who watches and reads true-crime stories) knows the importance of “discrediting the witness” in a trial. Back before I broke up with the mainstream media I spent many-a-night being lulled to sleep by Bill Curtis’s chocolate-y voice as he talked about husbands plotting to kill wives (or vice-versa) and their ensuing trials.
So all of us true-crime aficionados knows full well that the entire “sex scandal” thing with General Petraeus was not only meant to distract away from the real subject (Benghazi) but it was also meant to try to discredit the witness.
At this very moment, every story you read and every news snippet you watch regarding the Petraeus scandal is meant to do one thing: Cast doubt on anything General Petraeus says going forward.
It doesn’t matter that General David Petraeus is the former Director of the CIA and a highly decorated 4-star general who served 37 years in the United States Army—the man cheated on his wife. If he could lie about something like that, certainly he’s not someone to be trusted on any other subject either, right?
Last week Representative Peter King stated that Petraeus “knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism” and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice “were “edited to demphasize the possibility of terrorism”.
Petraeus’ statement proved the White House knew more than they previously admitted about Benghazi being a terrorist attack and wasn’t the “spontaneous act” they had claimed—so case closed on that subject?
Not so much.
If you do a quick Google search for the name Petraeus, here are some of the first headlines you’ll see:
“Petraeus Mistress Had Substantial Classified Data on Computer,” MSNBCNews.com
“The Petraeus Affair: A Lot More Than Sex;” CNN.com
“General David Petraeus Scandal—The Porn Star Connection,” TMZ
“David Petraeus Affair Reveals Threatening Letters From Mistress,” Inside Edition
After a week of parading Petraeus’s mistress all over your TV sets and throughout the Internet, the Leftist propaganda machine has officially turned the name “Petraeus” into “shifty”, “sneaky”, “smarmy”, and most important, “NOT TO BE TRUSTED”.
Of course this makes it the perfect time for the White House to do what it’s now doing: completely deny everything Petraeus is saying about Benghazi. Petraeus said he initially told the White House Benghazi was a terrorist attack and that his statement was edited; the White House is, in a nutshell, calling him a liar.
After all, he IS a liar, right?
So just like Fast and Furious, the Obama administration is hoping they can throw enough garbage at the American public to make them forget what’s up, what’s down, who’s telling the truth and who’s lying. Forget about the accusations of gunrunning; forget the fact that the White House tried to blame Benghazi on “stupid, backwards Americans” who created an anti-Islam YouTube video.
Unfortunately, all of us true-crime fans know that if investigators don’t have a lead within the first 48-hours, it’s virtually impossible to make their case and find the criminals–and I believe that’s exactly what this White House is counting on.
Tick, tick, tick…