CIA chief Petraeus resigns, reportedly over affair

[hnumpah]

Clinton was not impeached for anything other than the Monica affair...

I think way too much has been said about Clinton, and therefore will not discuss it further.

You would be wrong about th first part, as usual. He was impeached for perjury. But explaining that to you is like explaining things to Sirs. The only difference between you two is the flavor Kool-Aid you drink. That and he attempts to back up his positions with something other than bluster.

[sirs]

And in that case, you'd be wrong as well

[Plane]

I did not indicate that their stories were true, either.

The deal was, take this money and go away. They took the money, then they went away.

Clinton was not impeached for anything other than the Monica affair, so this is legally irrelevant.

As for Petraeus, it seems that he was simply fooling around. As he himself said, this was a dumb thing to do.

I think way too much has been said about Clinton, and therefore will not discuss it further.

Monica was only a witness, not a plaintiff.

All of your understanding is from Democratic hacks , so you have it all backwards.

Reverse it all, then you will have it right.

X-1

[hnumpah]

Approved Articles of Impeachment
 
Sunday, December 20, 1998

Following is the text of the two articles of impeachment passed by the House on December 19. Also see:
• The Impeachment Votes: House Roll Call
• The Articles Explained
• Text of Four Articles Passed by Judiciary Committee


1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Approved by House 228-206
Full Text
Explanation of Article I
 3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.

Approved by House 221-212
Full Text
Explanation of Article III
 



Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article III


In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm

[Plane]

Thanks!

That includes some detail I didn't know.

[sirs]

Here's some detail that H apparently doesn't know.....apparently he routinely ignores when sirs will frequently
- criticize republicans
- criticize Bush
- criticize politicians in general
- criticize DC
- criticize Government in general
- and so on

Yet, apparently sirs is just as equal in the coolaide factor as our hyper-partisan xo.  Go figure.  But I do thank H for recognizing my efforts to actually back up positions/claims made. 

[hnumpah]

Ah, but I do notice when Sirs even more frequently

- posts pieces by partisan hacks who leave out facts and details that do not support their points of view
- posts pieces without verifying the facts himself first
- sees a main stream media conspiracy to hide or not report 'news', either
   - as a lead item, because they don't deem it quite as newsworthy as he does
   - as an item at all, because there is no story no matter what the partisan hacks say

That said, I do have to say I believe Sirs does try, and he does make an attempt to back his opinions up with something more than just rantings and ravings. I guess that's why I enjoy going back and forth with him, he makes an effort. XO is simply a lost cause, a wind up toy that can only repeat the same thing over and over, usually wrong; which, by the way, might explain why he can never cite a reference.

Oh, and, you're welcome.

[sirs]

 

Thanks

I Still notice the effort at peddling "conspiracy", as it relates to MSM bias.  Ummm....you do recognize what conspiracy refers to, correct?  Of course you do, you're a smart fella.  Which begs the question, why keep inferring that when I reference MSM bias, I'm pushing some massive conspiracy cover-up?  Perhaps....and here's a thought, as its been suggested to me before....by, can't recall who it was....but before inaccurately assuming something of my "position", ask for clarification     

[hnumpah]

You certainly make it sound like some sort of conspiracy the way you describe it. (Paraphrasing here)

'You won't find this on the MSM...'

'The MSM won't make this their lead story...'

That, by the way, was what drew me back, the story about the militant group claiming responsibility about the Benghazi attack (leaving out that they shortly afterwards denied responsibility), and you're whining that none of the news services other than Faux News had the story as their lead. Sure, there may be bias, but to imply that every other news service - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, BBC, AP, UPI, Reuters, and so on - would pass up a story like that for anything other than being newsworthy, when normally they are scrambling all over each other to be the first to break a story like that, what else would anyone think? Yes, I am aware that conspiracy refers to two or more entities getting together to work toward some (usually nefarious) goal - is that not what you are implying, that members of the MSM are somehow working to keep unflattering news about Obama and his administration out of the press?

[sirs]

You certainly make it sound like some sort of conspiracy the way you describe it. (Paraphrasing here)

'You won't find this on the MSM...'

'The MSM won't make this their lead story...'

Yea....and?  I'll assume you're trying to ask for clarification, masked as continued erroneous assmumption of my position.  A conspiracy, along these lines, requires some measure of active communication, like from 1 network, to another.....from 1 reporter to another. If you'd been keeping track of the frequent references I make about MSM bias, is pretty similar to how Bernie Goldberg describes it.  It's like a group think.  When you're surrounded by folks that think the same things as you, regardless of how extreme or partisan it may be, you find yourself believing that its really "mainstream" thought, because......well because nearly everyone else around me is thinking the same way, so it must be perfectly reasonable

So, no, no conspiracy......what you have is a bunch of folks with a similar ideological mindset....GOP & conservatives largely bad greedy, selfish, uncaring, etc.  Dems/progressives/liberals/moderates on the other hand, good intentions, with sometimes a need to push the envelope to achieve those good intentions.  And stories/reporting/interviewing are largely going to "help that along".  Favorable stories towards the former will be.....minimized.  Stories that hurt them and improve the latter......maximized.  And for heaven's sake, let's report the bare minimum that could hurt the latter

See...no conspiracy.  You may now return to your regularly scheduled lizardmen

[hnumpah]

GOP & conservatives largely bad greedy, selfish, uncaring, etc.  Dems/progressives/liberals/moderates on the other hand, good intentions, with sometimes a need to push the envelope to achieve those good intentions.  And stories/reporting/interviewing are largely going to "help that along".  Favorable stories towards the former will be.....minimized.  Stories that hurt them and improve the latter......maximized.  And for heaven's sake, let's report the bare minimum that could hurt the latter

Gee, sounds like Faux News in reverse...

[sirs]

Did I ever claim Fox was completely unbiased??  ok, let's take a head count on major news organizations....

leans right in their bias?....Fox and.....Washington Times I suppose.  Could argue the WSJ

leans left in their bias?.....Pretty much every other news organization, both print and TV, both domestic and foreign

Starting to get my point, yet?

[hnumpah]

My point is, I don't rely exclusively, or even close to exclusively, on any of them. If I see a story that is unflattering to either side, I don't rush to post it, I take a look and see what the others are saying. As far as campaign claims and some other things, I'll fact check them at one or more of the independent fact check sites, or at Snopes.com, until I'm satisfied I have the full story, or as close to it as I can. Then there's thinking for myself; not looking at a story as something I can use to advance a candidate, or disparage another, but does the story make sense? Is this something worth getting all worked up over?

Let's take the St Lucie County vote tallies as an example. When I went to your original source, one thing I noticed was the other stories they linked to, and a quick glance showed many, if not most, were biased toward Republican candidates and agendas. That tipped me off that it was not an unbiased source. A quick search of the internet for other stories on the subject (I use Bing instead of Google) turned up the Snopes reference. I saw the explanation there, and a link to the .pdf file for the county's tally sheets, and checked it out. It fits. I was able to do all that in, I'd say, less than 15 minutes. That and common sense (if someone were trying to rig an election, why be so obvious about it? why hadn't any of the major news services, including Fox, picked up this story and run with it?) were pretty convincing. I notice the last question particularly rings true - why, days later, is this not front page news, or even buried on page 11?

I understand you don't like Obama, I do. I'm not thrilled with him either. I'm just suggesting maybe if you were a bit more objective and took the time to dig a bit deeper, you would be more likely to find the truth.

[BSB]

Lets get back to the real story.

As it stands now no one knows what happened here. However we do know that Petraeus is gone. The best guy for that job, at this moment, is gone and so we've all lost. The same thing happened with Gen. McChrystal. He was the best guy for that job and we lost him. Lets stop shooting ourselves in the foot here regarding our war against theses non-state terrorist actors shall we? Bad enough that BushliedandpeoplediedDickChenny wasted our troops, time, money, etc., in Iraq.


BSB

[sirs]

My point is, I don't rely exclusively, or even close to exclusively, on any of them.

Well, that's a good "point", but that wasn't your point.  Your point was to try and erroneously paint me as some polar opposite of Xo, minus all facs the contrary, with my frequent criticisms of those on "my side", and to believe in some massive conspiracy between the MSM, based on nothing more than an erroneus conclusion you had whenever I happen to highlight MSM bias

I appreciate that you consider your self looking to all sources, and don't really have a side, but for those who do, that doesn't make them a defacto coolaide drinker, nor believing in lizardmen when hilighting obvious efforts of....x.....in this case MSM bias.  It's merely pointing out facts, to which you can draw your own conclusions.



Ahh, I can see bsb's back to try and change the subject and goal into Bush bashing.  This should be right up your alley        It is funny however, how he can throw out the lying word, time and time again, yet never really provide an example of any, be it Bush or myself.  Imagine that