Two of the biggest scandals in the history of United States politics are both bubbling underneath the surface, each just waiting for one last torpedo to blow open the respective stonewalls. In the case of Benghazi, former C.I.A. Director David Petraeus may provide one of those torpedoes but he must be granted immunity as it appears his closed door testimony to House and Senate Intelligence committees back on November 16th may be at variance with some hard evidence that implicates Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Mursi.

In Lerner’s case, her signature on a document that approved the 501(c)(3) application of the foundation headed by the half-brother of the United States, may make her an accessory to terror funding. On June 28th, the House Oversight Committee approved a resolution that concluded Lerner waived her Fifth amendment rights on May 22nd when she made nine assertions of fact before invoking it.

Let’s begin with Petraeus. Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article printed soon after Petraeus testified:

David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

It appears, based on evidence presented in our recent report that, at a minimum, the reason given for why Ansar al-Sharia / Al-Qaeda is not entirely truthful. Remember, when you testify under oath, telling the ‘whole truth’ is part of that oath.

We now know, thanks to real-time video evidence shot at the scene and during the attack in Benghazi and a Libyan intelligence document, that Egypt’s Mursi was most likely involved in the attack and that there were members of Ansar al-Sharia from Egypt arrested and interrogated after the attacks. They identified Mursi as being involved as well.

Note what we have in bold in the second paragraph excerpted from the New York Times article:

“…a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah…”

This is misleading and feeds right into that part about telling the ‘whole truth’. The Libyan intelligence document identifies Ansar al-Sharia members from Egypt, who were arrested and interrogated. If this is true, then implying that all of the members from the group are from Libya may constitute not telling the ‘whole truth’.

This was again repeated further into the Times’ article and stated as fact:

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Note that there is one specific north African country that is not implicated in that statement – Egypt. Yet, real-time video and the Libyan intelligence document both not only implicate Egypt but its President.

According to members of Congress who were in the closed-door hearings with Petraeus, the former C.I.A. Director said something else that would later be contradicted by emails that were released this past May:

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

Again, the ‘whole truth’ appears to be missing here. One day before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five separate Sunday talk shows with talking points that omitted Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, Petraeus expressed displeasure to his deputy, about the final version of the talking points, saying, “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this.”

Via Fox News:

The documents also showed the White House, along with several other departments, played a role in editing the so-called “talking points,” despite claims from the White House that it was barely involved. And they showed then-CIA Director David Petraeus objected to the watered-down version that would ultimately be used as the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s flawed comments on several TV shows the Sunday after the attack.

Evidence suggests that Petraeus was very much included in the talking points sausage making. In light of new evidence that strongly implicates Egypt’s Mursi as being involved in the Benghazi attacks, perhaps a Congressional committee – House Oversight seems to be the most trustworthy – should grant Mr. Petraeus immunity in order to get to the truth about what he knows regarding Egypt’s involvement in the attacks.

As the heat was being turned up on Benghazi in May, the IRS Scandal broke. Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations for the IRS, attempted to invoke her fifth amendment rights in front of the House Oversight Committee on May 22nd but seriously erred when she made nine assertions of fact before doing so and was called out by former prosecutor and committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who alleged that she waived those rights by making those assertions. On June 28th, the Oversight Committee ruled that Lerner in fact, did waive her fifth amendment rights, which opens her up to being subpoenaed for further testimony.

Prior to that ruling, Gowdy delivered an impassioned argument for why Lerner did waive her fifth amendment right:

As for what Lerner should be granted immunity from, we take you to a one-page document dated June 26, 2011 which bears the signature of Ms. Lerner. This document granted 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF). Ms. Lerner appears to have broken the law by granting 38 months of tax-exempt status to BHOF by retroactively back-dating it to April 30, 2008. This implicates her in the possible commission of fraud.

But that’s not all.

The more disturbing part of the BHOF has to do with its founder, Malik Obama, the half-brother of President Barack Obama. Malik works as an Executive Secretary for the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO), which is an extension of the Sudanese government, led by Omar al-Bashir. The U.S. State Department has Sudan listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism while the International Criminal Court (ICC) has indicted al-Bashir on seven counts relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity. We have covered all of this extensively in this report.

This reality potentially implicates Lerner as an accessory to terror funding while simultaneously committing a felony.

In short, Mr. Petraeus should be shown what could be ‘smoking gun’ evidence that implicates Egypt’s Mursi as being involved in the Benghazi attack, explain that this evidence contradicts Petraeus’ November 16th testimony, and be granted immunity for spilling all of the beans. Ms. Lerner should be shown the June 26th document she signed, that granted tax-exempt status to an organization whose founder is in bed with terrorists. She should be informed of the severity of her actions and granted immunity in exchange for spilling all of the beans.