Just askin'.  

Another example.  Is he telling the truth here?  

Carney: White House notified of IRS targeting tea party ‘several weeks ago’; Obama: I found out Friday [VIDEO]
1:55 PM 05/14/2013

White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a press conference Tuesday that the White House was notified about the IRS targeting tea party groups “several weeks ago.” This comes a day after President Obama said he found out about it from news reports on Friday of last week.

During a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday, President Obama was asked about the IRS scandal. He responded, ”I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”

However, Carney said Tuesday that first a report had to be compiled by the IRS’s inspector general and then when it was completed, it was passed on to the administration.

Ads by Google“A notification is appropriate and routine and that is what happened and that happened several weeks ago,” Carney said.

Carney said the White House will not make a formal statement until a complete IG report is released.

Carney said later in the press conference that although the White House was notified “weeks ago” about the IRS investigaton, neither he nor the president were notified individually.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/carney-white-house-notified-of-irs-targeting-tea-party-several-weeks-ago-obama-i-found-out-friday-video/

He wanted a private meeting before they testified in public.  Happens all the time. 

Yep.

You're overstating things.  I agree 33 is probably going to point out everything the man does wrong, but that doesn't mean people cannot talk about "small" things that the man does wrong.  Nobody is calling this a scandal.  It's not a major event.  It doesn't deserve Congressional hearings.  It's just a moment where the president disrespected a couple of men in uniform.  

So you're saying you don't have a butthole? 

Interesting discussion of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  We impeached a judge for "chronic intoxication" in 1804.  I doubt any judge or president would be impeached today for being an alcoholic.

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

In the Washington Post reprinting of the Judiciary Committee's review of Impeachment in 1974, the review states, ""High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has traditionally been considered a "term of art", like such other constitutional phrases as "levying war" and "due process." The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

"It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[citation needed]

The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well.[citation needed] Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[citation needed] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.[citation needed]

As can be found in[2] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as "for whatever reason whatsoever". High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[3]

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, "Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials — one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges."[4]

The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.

Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[2]

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.[citation needed]

In the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the late 1990s for perjury, the exact meaning of the term high crimes and misdemeanors became the subject of debate. A particular subject of debate is exactly what rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Some felt[who?] that the act of perjury, a federal crime, rose to that level. Others felt[who?] that this particular act of perjury, while illegal, did not reach that level because the lie was specifically in regard to a matter of personal infidelity and that the questioning that led to it was allegedly politically motivated.

The legacy of high crimes and misdemeanors persists in military justice, where those having contractual obligations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) may be punished for offenses that would not be crimes if committed by civilians.[citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours

Does the president have it?

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 05/14/2013
TheWashingtonPost
(JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS)

“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?



The Facts


Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

(You can view this segment of the interview below. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)



Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”


The Pinocchio Test


During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.


Four Pinocchios



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Where is the part that says they are trying to block them from speaking in public?

You post more smiley faces than substantive comments on the board. 

Nah.  I'd just think it was even more disrespectful.  He should have asked for one of his staffers to grab an umbrella.  Or just man up and take the rain like everyone else. 

Yes, it was disrespectful.   

Having to put all those dumb smiley faces in every post takes a lot of work. 

Who specifically is trying to "block" them from speaking publicly and how are they trying to do this? 

It's not a scandal.  It's disrespectful.

President Bill Clinton

Articles of Impeachment and
Judiciary Committee Roll Call Votes
Updated Sunday, December 19, 1998

Following are the text and roll call votes for the four articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on December 11 and 12, 1998. Also see the text and votes on a censure resolution.


UPDATE: The Full House's Impeachment Vote

1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
House: Passed 228-206
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote

2. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition.

House: Failed 229-205
Committee: Passed 20-17
Full Text
Roll Call Vote
 
3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
House: Passed 221-212
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote

4. The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. (Amended by a 29-5 vote. See draft version.)
House: Failed 285-148
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote
 
(Editor's Note: Members' names link to their Congressional Guide profiles, which contain their e-mail and other contact information. Also see profiles of Judiciary Committee members.)

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 administra tion 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 testi mony 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 I passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)


Article II

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 administra tion of justice, in that:
(1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.

(2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee.

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.



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


Article II passed on a 20-17 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
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.



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


Article III passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Article IV


Using the powers and influence of the office of 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 disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States.

William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond, and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

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 IV passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm
 

President Andrew Johnson, who was acquitted:

On February 24, three days after Johnson's dismissal of Stanton, the House of Representatives voted 126 to 47 in favor of a resolution to impeach the president of high crimes and misdemeanors. The two sponsors of the resolution, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham, were immediately dispatched to inform the Senate that the House had officially voted for impeachment.

One week later, the House adopted eleven articles of impeachment against the president. The articles charged Johnson with:

1.Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated.
2.Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid.
3.Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate.
4.Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown," to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office.
5.Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act.
6.Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War."
7.Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
8.Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War."
9.Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
10.Making three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.
The eleventh article was a summation of the first ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson#Impeachment

The Nixon Articles of Impeachment:

Articles of Impeachment
This is the full text of the Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.

■Analysis of the Judiciary Committee Votes
Article 1
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, 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 consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

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

1.making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2.withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3.approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4.interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5.approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6.endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7.disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8.making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9.endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

Weiner warns of more inappropriate pictures
By Justin Sink - 04/24/13

Former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday there might be more controversial photos circulating from his time in Congress.

Weiner resigned in 2011 after images of him in various states of undress surfaced. The New York lawmaker sent the images via Twitter to women he met online.

“If reporters want to go try to find more, I can’t say that they’re not going to be able to find another picture, or find another — you know, person who may want to come out on their own, but I’m not going to contribute to that," Weiner told RNN-TV.

"The basics of the story are not gonna change, it's behind me, it was a huge mistake."

Weiner was also asked if it was possible that women would come forward to reveal that they had met the senator in person, presumably to conduct an extramarital affair.

"I never met the women who were at the other end of these anonymous conversations," Weiner said.

In an interview with The New York Times earlier this month, Weiner said he was seeking "people's approval" with the inappropriate images.

“I wasn’t really thinking,” Weiner said. “What does this mean that I’m doing this? Is this risky behavior? Is this smart behavior? To me, it was just another way to feed this notion that I want to be liked and admired.’’

Weiner is said to be considering a bid for New York mayor, although has not yet formally launched a campaign.

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/295967-weiner-more-inappropriate-pictures-may-exist

 

Pretty disrespectful.  I don't even know what else to say about him . . . .   

But I have to admit this is a really funny thread.   

True.  Option D you went and gayed this thread all up.  lol 

This lays out the deliberate pattern of lying pretty well. 

Wow.  This is a sea change.  I want to say Obama is in real trouble, but he's probably the luckiest politician in my lifetime.  Watch some meteor hit planet earth and take all of this stuff off the front page.  

How could you possibly know this if you've never trained with him? 

Oh this is really funny.  Will be sharing this one.